UNCONTROLLED
TP 6533E (05/2024)
May 1st, 2024
Permission is granted by the Department of Transport, Canada, to copy and/or reproduce the contents of this publication in whole or in part provided that full acknowledgment is given to the Department of Transport, Canada, and that the material be accurately reproduced. While use of this material has been authorized, the Department of Transport, Canada, shall not be responsible for the manner in which the information is presented, nor for any interpretations thereof.
It may become obsolete in whole or in part at any time without notice.
Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre: Manuel du pilote vérificateur agréé
TP 6533E (RDIMS 15208112) TP 6533F (RDIMS 15208221)
ISBN: 978-0-660-70034-2
Cat No.: T52-4/92-2024E-PDF TC-1005832
F O R E W O R D
This manual contains policies, procedures and guidelines that pertain to the Approved Check Pilot (ACP) program. It is published for use by both ACPs and Transport Canada Civil Aviation Safety Inspectors (CASIs).
Transport Canada selects and accredits ACPs for the purpose of conducting Flight Checks. While performing their duties, ACPs act as agents of the Minister pursuant to subsection 4.3(1) of the Aeronautics Act.
It is imperative that policies and procedures specified in this manual are followed. Transport Canada CASIs will abide by policies and procedures outlined in this manual unless superseded by information found in Staff Instruction (SI) 700-002.
This revision improves the quality and standardization of existing policies and incorporates program changes previously introduced in ACP/AQPE Bulletins and Advisory Circulars (ACs).
Additional changes have been introduced which situate the traditional (i.e., standalone) checking program as the basis for present and future enhanced checking models.
Any dispensation (i.e., special permission) from policies described in this manual must be subject to a risk assessment in accordance with Transport Canada Staff Instruction SI-QUA-008 - Risk Management Process for Aviation Safety Activities and satisfy public interest.
For more information, please contact:
Chief, Commercial Flight Standards (AARTF) Transport Canada
E-mail: AARTFinfo-InfoAARTF@tc.gc.ca
A C P / A Q P E B U L L E T I N S
ACP/AQPE Bulletins are issued (and revised) to communicate information in a timely manner.
These bulletins may be found on the Transport Canada Approved Check Pilot / Advanced Qualification Program(s) website.
While the Approved Check Pilot (ACP) Manual and associated ACP/AQPE Bulletins are disseminated electronically, paper copies of the ACP Manual should incorporate paper copies of these bulletins. The table below is provided to assist this process.
Bulletin Number | Title | Effective Date | Date Entered | Initials |
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Appendix A - Safe Checking Practices 112
The ICAO Manual of Procedures for Operations Inspection, Certification and Continued Surveillance (ICAO Document 8335 (AN/879)) states that it is a normal practice among civil aviation authorities to delegate responsibility for some activities related to type ratings, instrument ratings and Pilot Proficiency Checks (PPCs).
The Approved Check Pilot (ACP) program is a delegated service providing prompt and credible flight checking under the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) Part VII.
(1) The purpose of the Approved Check Pilot (ACP) Manual is to provide policy, direction and guidance for the nomination, training, ACP accreditation and monitoring of ACPs. This manual also provides policy, direction and guidance on flight checking activities, namely Pilot Proficiency Check (PPCs) and Line Checks.
(1) This document is applicable to all individuals, organizations, and Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) employees accredited by the Minister as authorized by Part 1, Section 4.3(1) of the Aeronautics Act.
ACP program policy and data tools are the responsibility of Transport Canada’s Commercial Flight Standards (AARTF) in Ottawa.
ACP program operational oversight, including ACP selection, on-site assessments, briefings, ACP accreditation and monitoring is the responsibility of various issuing authorities within Transport Canada’s regional offices and National Operations.
Quality assurance and standardization represents a performance commitment to established standards and policy. It includes the continual process of correcting, improving and developing all documentation and data tools related to a program.
Suggestions and/or corrections related to policy development should be forwarded to Transport Canada’s Commercial Flight Standards (AARTF) in Ottawa.
(1) Refer to ACP/AQP Bulletins on the Transport Canada Approved Check Pilot / Advanced Qualification Program website.
(1) Uncontrolled versions of Transport Canada documentation are available from a variety of sources including the Government of Canada publications website. For any flight related activity, controlled documentation must be used. Transport Canada documentation is available at:
https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/reference-centre/civil-aviation-integrated-management-system- ims-documents
The following are to be used in conjunction with this manual:
Aeronautics Act (R.S., 1985, c. A-2)
Part IV, Subpart 401 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) – Personnel Licensing and Training
Part VII, Subpart 702 of the CARs - Aerial Work Operations
Part VII, Subpart 703 of the CARs - Air Taxi Operations
Part VII, Subpart 704 of the CARs - Commuter Operations
Part VII, Subpart 705 of the CARs - Airline Operations
Transport Canada Publication (TP) 4711 – Air Operator Certification Manual
TP 9685 – Aeroplane and Rotorcraft Simulator Manual
TP 14727- Pilot Proficiency Check and Aircraft Type Rating – Flight Test Guide (Aeroplane)
TP 14728 - Pilot Proficiency Check and Aircraft Type Rating – Flight Test Guide (Helicopter)
Advisory Circular (AC) 700-042 - Crew Resource Management (CRM)
AC 700-051 – Monitoring Approved Check Pilots (ACPs) and Advanced Qualification Program Evaluators (AQPEs)
AC 700-062 - Alternate Pilot Proficiency Check – Phased PPC
AC 705-003 – Line Checks and Quality Assurance in Subpart 705 Commercial Air Operations
The following are additional references that may be relevant:
Part VI, Subpart 604 of the CARs – Private Operator and Passenger Transportation
TP 9939 – Flight Test Guide – Instrument Rating – Groups 1, 2 and 3 (Aeroplane)
TP 15099 - Flight Test Guide - Instrument Rating - Group 4 (Helicopter)
TP 1490 – Manual of All Weather Operations (Categories II and III)
TP 15419 - Authorized Person Policy Manual (Aeroplane and Helicopter)
(1) The Transport Canada Approved Check Pilot / Advanced Qualification Program website provides additional information (such as program reference information and ACP Bulletins) to the ACP community. This information is available here:
https://www.tc.gc.ca/en/services/aviation/commercial-air-services/approved-check-pilot- advanced-qualification-program.html
ACP Manual (10th Edition).
By default, it is understood that the publication of a new edition (or revision) of a document automatically cancels any earlier versions.
The following definitions are applicable to this document:
Approved Check Pilot (ACP) - A person holding an official authorization to conduct flight checks on behalf of the Minister of Transport pursuant to Part 1, Section 4.3(1) of the Aeronautics Act.
Canadian Aviation Document (CAD) - Subject to subsection (3) of the Aeronautics Act, any licence, permit, accreditation, certificate or other document issued by the Minister under Part I of the Aeronautics Act to or with respect to any person or in respect of any aeronautical product, aerodrome, facility or service.
(aa) Commercial Air Service Standards (CASS) - CARs Standards published under the authority of the Minister that apply in respect of commercial air services operated by air operators. Referred to as the CARs Standard(s) in this manual.
(bb) Company Check Pilot Manual (TP6533) - Predecessor of the Approved Check Pilot Manual (TP6533).
(cc) Company Employee - A person that is employed on a part time basis, full time basis or on contract on a seasonal basis.
(dd) Competency - A dimension of human performance that is used to reliably predict successful performance on the job. A competency is manifested and observed through behaviours that mobilize the relevant knowledge, skills and attitudes to carry out activities or tasks under specified conditions. Definition source: ICAO Doc 9868. See Proficiency.
(ee) Competency Check - A check conducted under Subpart 604 or the CARs. See CARs 604.142(4)(c)(ii) for ACP applicability. Also, a check applicable to some operators under Subpart 702 and 703 of the CARs. See CARs 702.66(1) and 703.90(1) for ACP applicability.
(ff) Conduct - To take an active role in all phases of a flight check, including pre-flight preparation, the briefing, the control and pace of the various sequences, the assessment of the flight check candidate's performance, the debrief and the completion of the required documents including certification of the candidate's licence.
(gg) Conflict of Interest - In this manual is defined as any relationship, whether family, financial or otherwise, that might influence an ACP to act, either knowingly or unknowingly, in a manner that does not hold the safety of the flying public as the primary and highest priority.
(hh) Contemporary Crew Resource Management (Contemporary CRM) - The current expression of crew resource management (CRM). Contemporary CRM integrates technical skill development with communications and crew coordination training and operational risk management by applying threat and error management (TEM) concepts. See CRM.
(jj) Crew Resource Management (CRM) - The effective utilization of all available resources to achieve safe and efficient operations. The objective of CRM is to enhance communications, human factors and management skills of the crew members concerned. Emphasis is placed on the non-technical aspects of crew performance. See Contemporary CRM.
(kk) Delegation (by Minister) - An approval by the Minister authorizing any person or class of persons to exercise or perform, subject to any restrictions or conditions that the Minister may specify, any of the powers, duties or functions of the Minister under Part 1 of the Aeronautics Act, other than the power to make a regulation, an order, a security measure or an emergency direction. See Accreditation.
(ll) Deviation – Within the 4-Point Marking Scale, a variation in precision from a specified parameter. See Error.
(mm) Error – Within the 4-Point Marking Scale, an action or inaction that leads to a variation from flight crew standards. See Deviation.
(nn) Flight Check - In this manual, refers to a PPC or Line Check.
(oo) Flight Test Exercise - A manoeuvre, task or item listed in the following:
Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) Standards;
Transport Canada Publication TP 14727 - Pilot Proficiency Check and Aircraft Type Rating - Flight Test Guide (Aeroplane);
TP 14728 - Pilot Proficiency Check and Aircraft Type Rating - Flight Test Guide (Helicopter); and
Transport Canada Online PPC Flight Test Report (previously forms 26-0249/26- 0279).
(pp) Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) - A Transport Canada-approved full-flight simulator or flight training device as defined in the Aeroplane and Rotorcraft Simulator Manual (TP9685) and certified in accordance with Section 606.03 of the CARs.
(qq) Flight Training and Aviation Education (FTAE) - A Transport Canada computer system designed to utilize data compiled from flight test reports and written examination answer sheets.
(rr) IFR-Related Sequence - A flight test exercise that is associated with instrument flight procedures such as, but not limited to, flight planning, standard instrument departures (SIDs), holds, standard terminal arrival routes (STARs), instrument approaches and missed approaches.
(ss) Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC) - A recurring event to confirm retention of a level of proficiency that meets the standards of performance required for the issuance of an instrument rating. Refer to Advisory Circular (AC) 401-004.
(tt) Issuing Authority – See Transport Canada Issuing Authority.
(uu) Letter of ACP Accreditation - A letter issued is pursuant to Part 1 Section 4.3(1) of the Aeronautics Act which allows an ACP to act on the Minister’s behalf with certain associated conditions. This letter is considered a Canadian Aviation Document (CAD), is subject to legal processes and is recognized before the Transportation Appeals Tribunal of Canada (TATC).
(vv) Licensing Agents - See Authorized Person.
(ww) Line Check - A Flight Check conducted in accordance with Paragraph 705.106(1)(d) of the CARs which is undertaken upon completion of line indoctrination.
(xx) Line Check Pilot - An individual currently employed as a pilot-in-command by a Subpart 705 of the CARs operator who is appointed to conduct Line Checks under the operator’s Line Check program. These Line Checks exclude those required for extended twin engine operations (ETOPS), cruise relief pilot (CRP) and RNAV operations.
(yy) Missing, Malfunction or Inoperative (MMI) Components – Under the FAA, a component of the Flight Simulator Training Device (FSTD) that is required to be present and correctly operate for the satisfactory completion of a manoeuvre, procedure, or task. Refer to FAA National Simulator Program Guidance Bulletin No. 08-01. See Simulator Component Inoperative Guide (SCIG) found in TP 9685 - Aeroplane and Rotorcraft Simulator Manual.
(zz) Non-Technical Proficiency Elements - In this manual, refers to cooperation, leadership and managerial skills, situational awareness and decision making. Non-technical proficiency elements are incorporated in the 4-point marking scale.
(aaa) Operations Specifications - The approvals, conditions and limitations associated with the operator certificate, and subject to the conditions in the operations manual. Note: not to be confused with ‘Ops Spec’. Refer to TP4711.
(bbb) Operator - Means the holder of an air operator certificate under Part VII of the CARs or the holder of a private operator registration document under Subpart 604 of the CARs.
(ccc) Phased PPC - Applicable to CARs Subparts 702-704 air operators, a PPC policy that provides PPC candidates with the opportunity to improve sub-standard performance before declaring the PPC unsuccessful. See Advisory Circular (AC) 700-062.
(ddd) Pilot Flying (PF) - The term pilot flying (PF) refers to the pilot responsible for managing the current and projected flight path of the aircraft in a multi-crew crew cockpit.
(eee) Pilot-In-Command (PIC) - In relation to an aircraft, the pilot having responsibility and authority for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time.
(fff) Pilot Monitoring (PM) - The term pilot monitoring (PM) replaces pilot not flying (PNF).
The PM is responsible for monitoring the current and future projected flight path vector of the aircraft in a multi-crew cockpit.
(ggg) Pilot Not Flying (PNF) – Pilot not flying (PNF) has been replaced by pilot monitoring (PM) in this manual. This definition is provided due to the use of PNF in Pilot Monitoring (PM) definition.
(hhh) Pilot Proficiency Check (PPC) - A flight check conducted by an approved check pilot (ACP) or Civil Aviation Safety Inspector (CASI) in accordance with the appropriate PPC Schedule specified in CARs Part VII Commercial Air Service Standards (CASS).
Plan of Action – Terminology adopted from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). A plan of action is similar to a scripted PPC, however is less formal. It is a document prepared by an ACP to guide the assessment of a PPC candidate. A plan of action must contain, as a minimum, a list of flight test exercises from the appropriate CARs Part VII Commercial Air Service Standard (CASS) - PPC Schedule and applicable Flight Test Guide. It may also include (as appropriate) one or more scenarios that group several required flight test exercises together.
(jjj) PPC/IFR – A Pilot Proficiency Check (PPC) conducted under instrument flight rules (IFR). A PPC/IFR is deemed to meet various requirements of an instrument rating including the initial issuance.
(kkk) PPC/VFR - A Pilot Proficiency Check conducted under visual flight rules (VFR). A PPC/VFR is deemed to meet the requirement for VFR operations only.
(lll) Principal Operations Inspector (POI) - A designated Transport Canada Civil Aviation Safety Inspector (CASI) assigned to a CARs Part VII operator.
(mmm) Professional Suitability - With respect to the ACP program, a delegate that possesses the knowledge, competency, judgement, integrity and communication skills (both oral and written) to represent the Minister in a favorable manner, and who has previously demonstrated a willingness to work cooperatively and constructively with TCCA to promote aviation safety.
(nnn) Proficiency - The degree of skill or competence that can be reliably demonstrated by an individual in the performance of a task. See Competency.
(ooo) Qualified Person - In the case of PPCs conducted in a simulator means:
a pilot who holds a valid PPC (or foreign equivalent) on the same type of aircraft on which the candidate is being checked;
a person who has been recommended for a Flight Check on that aircraft type; or
a qualified training pilot on the same type of aircraft for which the candidate is being checked on, and that person is acceptable to both the operator and the PPC candidate.
(ppp) Safety Pilot - In the case of a multi-crew aircraft, a training pilot or a pilot who holds a valid PPC on the same type of aircraft on which the candidate is being checked.
(qqq) Scripted PPC - A document that governs the events presented to candidates during a PPC that is conducted in a simulator. The script provides a detailed plan for the execution of flight test exercises (i.e., manoeuvres) in accordance with the CARs Part VII Commercial Air Service Standard (CASS) – PPC Schedule. Additional information such as Air Traffic Control (ATC) communications and simulator device instructions are provided. For more information, consult ACP Bulletin 04/20.
(rrr) Second-In-Command (SIC) - In relation to an aircraft, a pilot who reports to the pilot-in- command (PIC) on an aircraft type certificated for, or in operations requiring more than one required pilot flight crewmember. Synonymous with first officer (F/O) in this document.
(sss) Simulator Component Inoperative Guide (SCIG) – Under Transport Canada, a guide providing relief from initial simulator approval requirements. Refer to TP 9685 - Aeroplane and Rotorcraft Simulator Manual for more information. See Missing, Malfunction or Inoperative (MMI) Components for related FAA definition.
(ttt) Simulator PPC - A PPC conducted in a full-flight simulator.
(uuu) Special Authorization - An approval which is documented in the Operations Specifications. The term is interchangeable with Specific Approval. The term special authorization replaces ‘Ops Spec’. Refer to TP 4711 for more information.
(vvv) Specific Approval - An approval which is documented in the Operations Specifications. The term is interchangeable with Special Authorization. Refer to TP4711 for more information.
(www) Sponsored Approved Check Pilot (ACP) - An ACP who provides checking services to (and is employed by) an air operator. See Contract Approved Check Pilot (ACP).
(xxx) Standard Operating Procedure(s) (SOPs) - procedures established by an operator enabling the crewmembers to operate the aircraft within the limitations specified in the aircraft flight manual (AFM), aircraft operating manual (AOM), and/or company operations manual (COM).
(yyy) Technical Proficiency Elements - In this manual, refers to technical knowledge and skills and aircraft handling. Technical knowledge and skill elements are incorporated in the 4-Point Marking Scale.
(zzz) Threat and Error Management (TEM) - Threat and error management (TEM) can be considered defensive flying. It equips a pilot with skills and behaviour to recognize and avoid problems which if ignored or left unattended could result in an undesired aircraft state (UAS) and possibly lead to an incident or accident. TEM proposes that threats, errors and even undesired aircraft states (such as an altitude deviation) are everyday occurrences that pilots must manage to maintain safety. TEM is central to contemporary CRM.
(aaaa) Training Pilot - A pilot who meets the requirements of the applicable CARs Part VII
Commercial Air Service Standard (CASS).
(bbbb) Transport Canada Issuing Authority - A Transport Canada Technical Team Lead (TTL) Civil Aviation Manager or Associate Director of Operations (ADO) that may issue an ACP delegation and/or issue notices of refusal to issue, suspension, refusal to renew or cancellation pertaining to an ACP delegation and/or other Canadian Aviation Documents (CADS) defined within the ACP program.
(cccc) Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada (TATC) - A quasi-judicial body established in 2003 pursuant to the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act. The Tribunal replaced the Civil Aviation Tribunal, which was established under Part IV of the Aeronautics Act in 1986.
(dddd) Undesired Aircraft State (UAS) - An aircraft position, speed, attitude or configuration that results from a flight crew error, action or omission which clearly reduces safety margins.
(eeee) Upgrade Training - The training undertaken by a second-in-command (SIC) to qualify as a pilot-in-command (PIC).
(ffff) Vital action - An action that must be taken by the flight crew to alleviate a situation that could jeopardize safety of flight, taken in a timely manner consistent with the AOM or SOPs as appropriate.
The following abbreviations are applicable to this document:
(w) | IFR - Instrument Flight Rules |
(x) | IFT - Instrument Flight Test |
(y) | MAP - Missed Approach Point |
(z) | MMI – Missing, Malfunction or Inoperative (components) |
(aa) | OPI - Office of Primary Interest |
(bb) | PIC - Pilot-in-Command |
(cc) | PLPM - Personnel Licensing Procedures Manual |
(dd) | PORD - Private Operator Registration Document |
(ee) | PPC - Pilot Proficiency Check |
(ff) | RFM - Rotorcraft Flight Manual |
(gg) | SCIG - Simulator Component Inoperative Guide |
(hh) | SIC - Second-in-Command |
(ii) | SID - Standard Instrument Procedure |
(jj) | SOP - Standard Operating Procedure |
(kk) | STAR - Standard Terminal Arrival |
(ll) | TATC - Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada |
(mm) | TC AIM - Transport Canada Aeronautical Information Manual (TP 14371) |
(nn) | TCC - Transport Canada Centre |
(oo) | TEM - Threat and Error Management |
(pp) | TTL - Technical Team Lead |
(qq) | UAS - Undesired Aircraft State |
ACP Services to CARs Part VII Operators
An ACP may be authorized to conduct a Flight Check on select aircraft for which they hold an appropriate (blanket or individual) type rating and which are operated under the following Subparts of the CARs:
Subpart 702;
Subpart 703;
Subpart 704; and
Subpart 705.
Authority Types - ACP (Type A), (Type B) and (Type M)
ACPs are classified as either Type A, Type B and/or Type M.
An ACP (Type A) is authorized to conduct Pilot Proficiency Checks (PPCs) in an approved simulator and/or an aircraft. They may also be authorized to conduct Line Checks in aircraft operated under Subpart 705 of the CARs.
An ACP (Type B) is authorized to conduct Line Checks only as required under Subpart 705 of the CARs. ACP (Type B) authorizations are granted when a sponsoring air operator requires the following:
enroute area navigation (RNAV) proficiency assessments;
cruise relief pilot certification; and/or
extended range twin-engine operations (ETOPs) certification.
An ACP (Type M) is authorized to conduct ACP Monitors (Recurrent) on ACPs (Type A) within the same AOC holder. Refer to Advisory Circular (AC) 700-051 for more information.
Below is a summary of ACP authorities:
ACP Authorities | Type B | Type A | Type M |
Line Check (As per Subpart 705 of the CARs only) | | () | () |
PPC/VFR | | () | |
PPC/IFR | | () | |
PPC/IFR (Simulator only) | | () | |
ACP Monitor (Recurrent) | |
Line Check Authority – ACP (Type A)
Line Check authority is normally provided to ACPs (Type A).
Where an ACP’s (Type A) PPC checking authority becomes invalid due to an expired ACP Monitor, the ACP (Type A) checking authority to conduct Line Checks will remain in effect.
Authorized Aircraft Types – Aeroplanes
Classifications of Aeroplane Type Designations
All aeroplanes have a type designation. These designations are classified as either individual or blanket. Aeroplanes for which an individual type rating is applicable include two crew and high-performance aeroplanes.
When blanket type rated aeroplanes are endorsed in the Aviation Document Booklet (ADB), they are normally identified as an aeroplane class rating. These class ratings include:
Single Engine (SE);
Single and Centreline Thrust (SCE); and
Single- and Multi-engine (SME).
These classes are further amplified with either Land (L) and/or Sea (S). For example, SMEL and SES.
Maximum Number of Authorized Types - Aeroplanes
Maximum Number of Authorized Types - Aeroplanes | |
Note 1: The requirement to list each approved blanket aircraft type designator will be implemented in conjunction with normal issuances & re-issuances of the Letter of ACP Accreditation. Note 2: Further limitations to the maximum number of authorized aeroplane types may apply – see below. | |
An ACP accreditation will normally specify a maximum of three (3) aeroplane types.
An ACP may request an additional two (2) aeroplane types for a total of five (5). In this case, an ACP will be required to submit information in support of a risk assessment for the fourth (4th) and fifth (5th) aeroplane types.
Blanket Aeroplane Types - One approved aeroplane type may represent several blanket aeroplane types. Each blanket type designator per appropriate class rating must be listed on an ACP’s accreditation.
Authorized Aircraft Types – Helicopters
Classifications of Helicopter Type Designations
All Helicopters have type designations.
All helicopter designations are categorized as individual.
Maximum Number of Authorized Types - Helicopters
Maximum Number of Authorized Types - Helicopters |
Note: Further limitations to the maximum number of authorized helicopter types may apply – see below. |
An ACP accreditation will normally specify a maximum of three (3) multi- engine helicopter types.
An ACP may request an additional two (2) multi-engine types for a total of five (5). In this case, the additional type(s) will must be a variant of another type(s) listed on the ACP’s accreditation.
Single Engine Helicopter Types - A maximum of eight (8) single-engine helicopter types may be requested. This number is reduced by one (1) for each multi-engine helicopter type that has been authorized.
Authorized Aircraft Types - Limitations to Maximum Number
(iv) Other reasons deemed important by the Transport Canada Issuing Authority.
Certain complex flight operations may rely on complex SOPs requiring comprehensive knowledge.
(A)
(iii) Complexity of Flight Operations
Aircraft equipped with integrated avionics suites, FMSs, EFIS, RNAV/GPS systems or other advanced technologies may require specific knowledge and qualifications.
(A)
(ii) Automation and Technology
Specific Series / Models of Aircraft Types
(A) Specific series / models of aircraft types may carry significant differences from other series / models captured under the same pilot type rating.
(i)
Limitations to Maximum Number of Authorized Types – Aeroplane & Helicopter
Limitations to the maximum numbers of authorized aeroplane and helicopter types may be imposed for the following reasons:
PPCs Conducted for the Sole Purpose of Issuing an Individual Type Rating
ACPs (Type A) are permitted to conduct a PPC for the sole purpose of issuing an individual type rating provided they are authorized to do so by a Transport Canada Issuing Authority.
Under these circumstances, the candidate must have:
completed a recognized program of ground and flight training on the aircraft type (note: this training may have been delivered by an approved Type Rating and Training Organization (TRTO) or FAR Part 142 Training Center); and
presented the minimum hours of flight time on aircraft as indicated in CAR Part IV (e.g., sections 401.40 or 421.40) for the applicable type rating.
Upon successful completion of the PPC, the ACP may assign temporary privileges that include an individual type rating and/or an instrument rating provided the requirements of section 401.06 of the CARs are met; and
PPCs Conducted for the Sole Purpose of a Skills Test for an Airline Transport Pilot Licence (ATPL)
ACPs (Type A) are permitted to conduct a PPC for the Sole Purpose of a Skills Test for an Airline Transport Pilot Licence (ATPL) provided they are authorized to do so by a Transport Canada Issuing Authority.
Refer to CASS 421.34 (Aeroplanes) and CASS 421.35 (Helicopters) for more information.
PPCs Conducted for the Sole Purpose of Issuing an Instrument Rating
ACPs (Type A) are permitted to conduct a PPC/IFR on personnel who are not associated with a Canadian operator provided they are authorized to do so by a Transport Canada Issuing Authority.
A successful PPC/IFR meets the skill requirements necessary for the issuance of an instrument rating.
Consult Instrument Rating Flight Test Guide (TP9939) and incorporate requirements found under Flight Test Items 1 (Pre-flight), 2 (IFR Operational Knowledge) and 3 (Air Traffic Control Clearances).
Checks Conducted as a Standalone Event due to Equipment Differences and/or Special Authorizations
Normally, a single PPC will encompass all necessary checking elements relative to an air operator’s approved program. This may include a simulator PPC portion and separately, an airborne PPC portion.
There may be instances, however, where a PPC has been completed and a separate (standalone check event) is conducted as an addendum to the completed PPC. Reasons include equipment differences, special authorizations which may (or may not) relate to contracted training services. A non-exhaustive list of examples includes the following:
A 24-month PPC validity period is exercised, however, CAT II/III checking requirements must satisfy a 12-month requirement;
GPS and/or FMS differences between a simulator and the air operator’s specific aircraft installation;
RNP AR APCH checking requirements; and
EFVS checking requirements.
Additional Authorities Beyond the ACP Program
In addition to the authorities identified in this manual under Part VII of the CARs, ACPs may be authorized by their Transport Canada Issuing Authority to conduct the following activities:
Competency Check and Competency Check training under Subpart 604 of the CARs;
604.143 of the CARs and Competency Check (Private Operators) - Flight Test Guide (TP 15335).
Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC) in accordance with clause 401.05(3)(c)(iii)(B) of the CARs and Advisory Circular (AC) 401-004; and
Additional Circling Approach Approvals associated with a qualified Flight Simulator Training Device (FSTD) in accordance with the Aeroplane and Rotorcraft Simulator Manual (TP9685) and National Simulator Evaluation Program Guidance Bulletin NSEP 12-1.
If conducting these activities, additional authorizations are important for indemnification purposes.
Indemnification
ACPs are advised that indemnification is dependent upon an authorization. An authorization is dependent upon adequate training.
Information on activities beyond the normal scope of the ACP program (e.g., Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC)) is not provided in this manual nor required to be provided by ACP Course providers. Any required training and individual authorities may, however, be coordinated by an appropriate Transport Canada Issuing Authority. Additional authorities may be provided by the following:
One-time authorization; or
Additional privilege on a Letter of ACP Accreditation.
One-Time Authorizations
There may be circumstances where an ACP is provided a one-time authorization to conduct a flight check beyond conditions specified in their Letter of ACP Accreditation.
Fight Checks (PPCs and Line Checks)
Where an ACP does not meet the general ACP requirements (see Chapter 4) with respect to a particular aircraft type, one-time authorizations may be provided on a case-by-case basis by a Transport Canada Issuing Authority.
Normally, the Transport Canada Issuing Authority will consider whether a CASI is available to perform the Flight Check event.
Checks and Activities Beyond the ACP Program
One-time authorizations with respect to checks and activities beyond the ACP program (e.g., Instrument Proficiency Checks (IPCs)) do not require a risk assessment where an ACP satisfies the general ACP requirements (see Chapter
4) on the applicable aircraft type.
Candidates who are ACPs
An ACP may conduct a PPC on an ACP or CASI candidate without special authorization from the Transport Canada Issuing Authority.
An ACP is responsible for all aspects of their ACP accreditation which also includes administrative duties.
An ACP may not exercise their accreditation and must notify their Transport Canada Issuing Authority if they are involved in any of the following:
an aviation accident or incident;
found to be in violation of the Aeronautics Act or in contravention of the CARs;
their own flight check is unsuccessful;
no longer in possession of a valid medical certificate; or
a status change that may create a potential conflict of interest as outlined in this manual.
An ACP is to make themselves available to their Transport Canada Issuing Authority when required for direct communication as it relates to the performance of the ACP’s duties.
Conduct and Service:
ACPs both support and represent the Minister of Transport in delivering service under the ACP program.
An ACP is expected to honour appointments unless circumstances warrant cancellation or postponement. It is the ACP’s responsibility to reschedule a Flight Check if the postponement is at the ACP’s request.
If an ACP cancels a Flight Check without rescheduling, the ACP should recommend another ACP or at the very least, direct the operator or individual pilot to their Transport Canada Issuing Authority.
As agents of the Minister, ACPs are required to be polite and respectful with Flight Check candidates and the operators they are employed with. At the same time, ACPs are required to exercise a duty of care and comply with the conflict of interest policy.
Conflict of interest is defined as any relationship, whether family, financial or otherwise, that might influence an ACP to act, either knowingly or unknowingly, in a manner that does not hold the safety of the flying public as the primary and highest priority.
Perceived versus Real Conflict of Interest:
All ACPs are considered to be in a perceived conflict of interest if they are simultaneously employees (regular or contract) of the operator and delegates of the Minister when performing Flight Check duties.
To avoid a real conflict of interest, it is imperative that ACPs strictly adhere to the policy and guidelines contained in this manual. Lack of adherence to these policies and guidelines may result in a suspension or cancellation of an ACP's accreditation.
The following are examples of situations that could be considered a conflict of interest:
a financial interest in the company;
a direct involvement in company ownership;
holding an upper management position, such as that of an accountable executive, director of flight operations or chief pilot;
owning a substantial number of voting shares of the company;
involvement with a pilot union or association;
a particular relationship between an ACP and the Flight Check candidate such as when the candidate is an operations manager, accountable executive, chief pilot, supervisory pilot, another ACP or relationship of a personal nature;
having family ties with company owners; and
any privileges or favours which could bias an ACP's ability to conduct his or her duties.
Declaring Potential Conflicts of Interest
An interest, financial or otherwise in a company will not automatically disqualify a candidate from being granted ACP authority. The Transport Canada Issuing Authority will assess each case with consideration to all circumstances involved.
To determine whether an ACP candidate’s conflict of interest is real or perceived, he or she will declare to their Transport Canada Issuing Authority any potential conflict of interest of which they have knowledge. ACPs must be prepared to discuss (at any time) a change to their status with respect to a potential conflict of interest.
Should any ACP encounter a situation that they feel might constitute a real conflict of interest, a full report of the circumstances must be immediately submitted to their Transport Canada Issuing Authority.
The final authority for deciding whether there is a conflict of interest that might affect the ACP’s ability to conduct an impartial Flight Check rests with their Transport Canada Issuing Authority.
Obligation to Report Attempts to Obstruct or Influence
An ACP must immediately notify their Transport Canada Issuing Authority of any effort by any person(s) to obstruct or influence them in the conduct of their ACP duties. Should this occur, the Transport Canada Issuing Authority will investigate the incident and take appropriate action.
In providing services, ACPs are regarded as agents of the Crown to the extent that they act on behalf of the Minister.
The Government of Canada, under the provisions of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act will indemnify ACPs against personal liability incurred by reason of any act or omission within the scope of their duties.
The Government of Canada will make no claim against an ACP for damages the Crown has to pay based upon personal liability provided the ACP acted honestly, without malice, within the scope of their ACP accreditation and with a standard of care that a reasonable person in their position engaged in the same activity would take.
Additional information regarding ACP Liability can be obtained by consulting Policy on Legal Assistance and Indemnification provided by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat:
https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=13937
The authorized person (AP) accreditation allows an individual to act as a licensing agent for Transport Canada for the purpose of issuing temporary privileges and streamlining the licensing process. ACPs (Type A) are normally delegated this privilege within a defined scope of activities.
Normal Scope of Activities
Unless stated otherwise in a Letter of ACP Accreditation, an ACP’s scope of activities as an authorized person is limited to the blanket aeroplane and individual aircraft types listed in a Letter of ACP Accreditation.
ACPs (Type A) with an AP accreditation may perform the following tasks in support of an individual aircraft type rating or instrument rating:
Certify documentation as a “certified true copy of original” in support of a Flight Crew Permit / Licence – Application for Endorsement of a Rating (form 26-0083);
Assess and certify a Flight Crew Permit / Licence – Application for Endorsement of a Rating (form 26-0083); and
Grant temporary (i.e., 90 day) privileges in a Canadian Aviation Document (ADB) or by providing a Certificate of Additional Privileges Card (form 26-0267).
Guidance Document and Training Provided by ACP Course Providers
Guidance on Authorized Person (AP) policy is found in the Authorized Person Policy Manual (Aeroplane and Helicopter), TP 15419.
ACP course providers provide training on the AP activities within the normal scope ACP of activities. ACP course providers are not required to provide training on AP privileges regarding blanket type rated aeroplanes (i.e., issuing temporary privileges associated with an aircraft class rating).
Authorized Person (AP) Privileges – Blanket Type Rated Aeroplanes
Aeroplane blanket type rating are normally combined with an aeroplane class rating. For this reason, additional AP training is required for ACPs who will be assessing and issuing associated aeroplane class ratings (e.g., a seaplane rating). This training is not considered extensive but must be obtained prior to exercising this AP privilege.
ACPs wishing to obtain AP privileges with respect to blanket typed aeroplanes must contact their Transport Canada Issuing Authority.
ACPs (Type A) acquire AP knowledge on the ACP Course (Initial or Recurrent). This training includes information on the following:
issuing individual type ratings (Aeroplane or Helicopter);
issuing initial instrument ratings; and
completing the Application for Endorsement of a Rating (Form 26-0083).
Additional Authorized Person (AP) Information
For more information on AP privileges not addressed within the ACP program, contact Transport Canada, Pilot Training and Licensing (AART) at email: fcl@tc.gc.ca (subject: AP manual).
Documentation and Validity
ACP authorized person privileges are issued with the Letter of ACP Accreditation.
If an ACP authority lapses for any reason, associated ACP authorized person privileges also lapse.
Any extension to the validity period of an ACP Course (Initial or Recurrent) automatically extends authorized person accreditation privileges to the same date with a new validity period calculated in the same manner.
ACPs exercising authorized person privileges by processing an application for additional privileges must do the following:
forward applicable documentation to Transport Canada within five (5) working days; and
maintain copies of all documentation supporting the issuance of a rating for which temporary privileges have been granted, for a period of not less than two (2) years.
See Definitions.
(Reserved)
With the prior concurrence of their Transport Canada Issuing Authority, ACPs may be sponsored by an operator they are employed with. Regardless of the relationship between the ACP and their operator, ACPs act on behalf of the Minister when providing Flight Check services. Ultimately the responsibility of adhering to ACP program policies and guidance rests with the ACP and not the sponsoring organization.
Sponsored ACP (Type B)
An ACP (Type B) accreditation is normally only available under an air operator sponsorship arrangement.
Operators that sponsor one or more ACPs may, with the concurrence of their Transport Canada Issuing Authority, employ the services of a non-sponsored ACP on occasion.
Communications
A Transport Canada Issuing Authority will communicate directly with the ACP, the sponsoring organization or both in relation to an ACP’s duties or performance.
Operator Assistance to a Transport Canada Issuing Authority
The operator may assist a Transport Canada Issuing Authority with the following:
establishing the need for ACPs within that organization;
facilitating ACP nominations; and
providing ACP training.
Scripted PPC and/or Plan of Action Development
An operator is expected to coordinate standardized Scripted PPCs and/or Plans of Action appropriate to their certified operation.
Administrative Support
ACPs sponsored by an operator may, with the concurrence of their Transport Canada Issuing Authority, use the operator’s administrative infrastructure to accomplish tasks specified in this manual. These tasks include, for example, scheduling Flight Checks, scheduling ACP monitors, submitting flight test reports and maintaining records.
Authorization from the Operator
Although representing the Minister while providing Flight Check services, ACPs also require the authority of an operator to conduct Flight Checks on its employees. This authority must be provided as a formal permission (i.e., a written record maintained).
Sponsorship Termination
An air operator must advise the Transport Canada Issuing Authority when an ACP is subject to the following:
no longer employed or sponsored by the company; or
will not be required to provide Flight Check services in the coming 24 months.
ACPs departing an operator sponsorship arrangement are not automatically provided an unsponsored ACP accreditation. As a minimum, a Transport Canada Issuing Authority will undertake a needs assessment prior to providing a new letter of ACP accreditation.
Canadian operators or individual pilots must obtain ACP services by:
Assigning an ACP sponsored by an operator;
contracting an ACP using the Transport Canada Delegations Information System (DIS) –
Approved Check Pilot Search website; or
contracting an ACP/TCE or ACP/SFE at a Transport Canada recognized air training organization/training center.
In the event that an operator or individual pilot is unable to coordinate the services of an ACP, Transport Canada Issuing Authorities and/or Civil Aviation Commercial Flight Standards are available for assistance.
ACP services must be coordinated prior to a candidate commencing aircraft training to ensure no scheduling interruptions occur.
When requesting the services of any ACP, an operator or individual pilot must provide the following information to the ACP:
Requesting ACP Services | |
Item | Required Information |
(a) | Pilot candidate name and licence number (i.e., 5802 file number) |
(b) | Aircraft type designator |
(c) | PPC or Line Check (or other checking activity) |
(d) | Initial, recurrent or upgrade check |
(e) | Present (i.e., existing) check valid-to date |
(f) | Applicable Air Operator (including TC 5258 file number) and CARs Subpart(s) |
(g) | Pilot-in-Command (PIC), Second-in-Command (SIC) or Cruise-Relief-Pilot (CRP) assignment |
(h) | Pilot Flying (PF) and Pilot Monitoring (PM) seat assignments (i.e., left and/or right) |
(i) | New type rating, instrument rating and/or ATPL application requirements Note: Prior coordination with a Transport Canada Issuing and Licensing Authority is strongly recommended to ensure all CARs Part IV application requirements (e.g., applicable examinations and validity dates) are met by the candidate. |
(j) | Special Authorization / Specific Approval requirements applicable to a PPC or Line Check (e.g., 1200, 600, 300 RVR or lower than standard take-offs, CAT II/III instrument |
approaches, GPS (aeroplane) or RNAV (GNSS)/ARA (helicopter) instrument approaches, minimum crew without second-in-command) | |
(k) | Any planned use of a foreign licence validation |
(l) | Planned Full Flight Simulator (FFS) location and Sim ID, and/or aircraft location and registration |
(m) | Applicability and permission to exercise the Unsuccessful (PIC) PPC Assessment Option by an air operator (detailed in this manual) |
ACPs must maintain the information above regarding a request for Flight Check services as part of their record keeping responsibilities.
A Transport Canada Issuing Authority must be notified in advance of Flight Checks conducted by ACPs. While seven (7) days is considered a minimum, procedures vary according to the following:
whether an ACP is sponsored or not; and
which Transport Canada region (or National Operations) is the issuing authority.
ACPs sponsored by an operator must follow notification requirements established between their operator and their Transport Canada Issuing Authority. ACPs not sponsored by an operator must establish notification requirements directly with their Transport Canada Issuing Authority.
As a minimum, an ACP’s Flight Check schedule must be available upon request to their Transport Canada Issuing Authority as part of its oversight activities.
Many Canadian pilots receive their aircraft training from training centers that are certified under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 142 which service US operators under Parts 91, 135 and 121. Other Canadian pilots receive aircraft training, for example, from a Type Rating Training Organization (TRTO) certified under EASA or UK CAA (e.g., Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of UK CAA Document 24).
The foreign ACP accreditation mechanism was developed to improve ACP services to CARs Subpart 702,703 and 704 operators and takes advantage of the knowledge already acquired by select foreign examiners with respect to specific aircraft types and Flight Checks (namely PPCs). Currently, a Transport Canada Issuing Authority may offer the following two accreditations:
ACP/TCE (i.e., FAA); and
ACP/SFE (i.e., EASA).
Qualification Requirements
Where a Transport Canada Issuing Authority considers delegating the conduct of Flight Checks under the CARs to individuals qualified to perform similar duties (i.e., Training Center Evaluator (TCE) or Synthetic Flight Examiner (SFE)), such applicants are expected to meet the intent of the various licence, qualification, experience and currency requirements detailed in the ACP program.
This is accomplished by holding a licence and valid qualifications, possessing a similar level of experience and maintaining currency in a form and manner that would be deemed equivalent by a Transport Canada Issuing Authority.
Training
In meeting the requirements of the ACP program, a unique ACP Course (Initial or Recurrent) may be designed to provide transition training between the FAA/EASA and Transport Canada programs taking advantage of common knowledge and skills.
ACP Monitors
ACP/TCEs and ACP/SFEs are subject to normal ACP Monitor requirements.
Administrative Responsibilities
Transport Canada authorized person (i.e., licensing agent) training may or may not be provided under the foreign regulatory ACP program. ACP/TCEs or ACP/SFEs not receiving this training and subsequent authorized person accreditation are precluded from issuing temporary licensing privileges.
In cases where the ACP/TCE or ACP/SFE is not an authorized person, the following applies:
Flight Test Reports
A copy of the Transport Canada Online PPC Flight Test Report (previously forms 26-0249/26-0279) is provided to the candidate/operator for their records.
The controlled Transport Canada Online PPC Flight Test Report (previously forms 26-0249/26-0279) is submitted (and routed) to the operator’s Transport Canada oversight region for acceptance.
Application for a Rating
The original Flight Crew Permit / Licence - Application for Endorsement of a Rating form (Form 26-0083) is provided to the candidate/operator who will be required to contact their Transport Canada oversight region.
In order to obtain temporary privileges, pilot candidates are required to present the above documentation together with their completed training documents (e.g., record of training reports) to one of the following authorities for:
an authorized person within the company they are employed with;
a Transport Canada Issuing Authority; or
any TCC personnel.
In cases where the ACP/TCE or ACP/SFE is an authorized person, normal administrative procedures including the issuing of temporary privileges (detailed in this manual) apply.
Restrictions and Limits of Accreditation
ACP/TCE and ACP/SFE are authorized to conduct initial, recurrent and upgrade Pilot Proficiency Checks (PPCs) in TCCA approved full flight simulators operated within the organization(s) they are affiliated with for personnel associated with a Canadian air operator.
If applicable, Authorized Person (AP) accreditation for the purposes of issuing temporary privileges for a Type Rating and/or Instrument Rating upgrade (as identified above) may be provided in their Letter of ACP Accreditation.
Both ACP candidate and accredited ACPs must possess the following:
Pilot Licence
A valid Canadian commercial pilot licence or airline transport pilot licence (ATPL)
– aeroplane or helicopter.
ACP candidates seeking authority to conduct PPC/IFRs on aircraft that are type certified multi-crew or high performance require an Airline Transport Pilot Licence (ATPL).
Instrument Rating(s)
An appropriate and valid instrument rating(s) for the conduct of an IFR PPC.
Type Rating(s) and/or Aircraft Class Rating(s)
A type rating on each aircraft type where that aircraft requires an individual type rating.
An appropriate aircraft class rating(s) where that aircraft does not require an individual type rating (i.e., blanket type rated aeroplanes).
Pilot Proficiency Check (PPC) and Aircraft Familiarization Training
The most immediate demonstration of an ACP’s technical credibility is a valid pilot-in-command Pilot Proficiency Check (PIC PPC) on a specific aircraft type in accordance with a specific air operator’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), where applicable.
Some ACPs provide checking services on more than one type of aircraft. Subject to certain conditions, as few as one successful and valid PIC PPC may be maintained among multiple authorized aircraft types. Where a successful and valid PIC PPC is not required on a specific aircraft type, aircraft familiarization training applies.
ACP PPC and aircraft familiarization training requirements are provided for both aeroplanes and helicopters. Requirements differ due to aircraft type classifications, CARs subpart applicability and prominence of domestic versus foreign operations.
Pilot Proficiency Check (PPC) Requirements - Aeroplanes
Pilot Proficiency Check (PPC) Requirements - Aeroplanes | |
The aeroplane type(s) on which a PIC PPC must be maintained will be determined by the Transport Canada Issuing Authority in consultation with the ACP.
An ACP may be required to maintain more than one PPC subject to the following:
The ACP lacks operational experience (e.g., fewer than 500 hours on a particular aeroplane type);
The ACP’s authorized aeroplane types are significantly different (e.g., B767 and C208); and
The authorized aeroplane types are individually complex.
Normally, the most complex type(s) will be selected unless it would be beneficial to rotate a PPC(s) among an ACP’s authorized types.
CAT II and/or III Operations - A PPC held as pilot-in-command is required for conducting PPCs involving CAT II and/or III operations.
Aeroplane Familiarization
Aeroplane familiarization is applicable to both individual and blanket type rated aeroplanes:
Aeroplane familiarization includes ground and flight components.
Aeroplane familiarization flight time may be accomplished in one of the following devices:
Flight Training Device (FTD);
Full Flight Simulator (FFS); or
Aircraft.
Aeroplane familiarization requirements are subdivided with respect to an ACP’s own flight time experience on a particular aeroplane type.
Less Than Five Hundred (500) Flight Time Hours
An ACP must have completed recurrent ground training on type within the last twelve (12) months.
An ACP must have completed sufficient flight time while occupying a seat that has flight controls installed to cover all PPC flight test exercises within the last twelve (12) months for each aeroplane type.
More Than (or Equal to) Five Hundred (500) Flight Time Hours
An ACP must have completed recurrent ground training on type within the last twenty-four (24) months.
An ACP must have completed sufficient flight time while occupying a seat that has flight controls installed to cover all PPC flight test exercises within the last twelve (12) month period for each aeroplane type.
(E)
Aeroplane Familiarization Requirements
(C) CAT II Operations - A PPC held as pilot-in-command is required for conducting PPCs involving CAT II operations.
The helicopter type on which a PIC PPC must be maintained may be selected by an ACP in consultation with the Transport Canada Issuing Authority.
Successive PIC PPCs should vary between helicopter types authorized on a Letter of ACP Authority unless the Transport Canada Issuing Authority directs otherwise to maintain specific competencies subject to the following:
An ACP that conducts flight checks on multi-engine and single-engine helicopter types should vary their PIC PPC between multi-engine and single-engine helicopter types; and
An ACP must not conduct a flight check on a multi-engine helicopter, however, if an ACP has not completed a PIC PPC on a multi-engine helicopter within 24 months.
(A)
(B)
Pilot Proficiency Check (PPC) Requirements - Helicopters
Pilot Proficiency Check (PPC) - Helicopters
Helicopter Familiarization
Helicopter familiarization is applicable to both single- and multi-engine helicopter types. This training includes ground and flight components.
The following devices may be used to meet helicopter familiarization flight time requirements:
Flight Training Device (FTD);
Full Flight Simulator (FFS); or
Aircraft.
Helicopter familiarization requirements are subdivided with respect to an ACP’s own flight time experience on a particular helicopter type.
Helicopter Familiarization Requirements | |
More Than (or Equal to) Five Hundred (500) Flight Time Hours
An ACP must have completed recurrent technical ground training on each type, and differences training for variants, within the last twenty-four (24) months.
An ACP must have completed 0.5 hours of flight time in a 12- month period on each type of single-engine helicopter (excluding variants), and 1.0 hours of flight time in a 12-month period for each type of multi-engine helicopter (excluding variants), while occupying a seat that has flight controls installed.
Less Than Five Hundred (500) Flight Time Hours
An ACP must have completed recurrent technical ground training on each, and differences training for variants, once every 24 months.
An ACP must have completed 1.0 hours of flight time in a 12- month period on each type of single-engine helicopter, and 1.5 hours of flight time in a 12-month period for each type of multi- engine helicopter, while occupying a seat that has flight controls installed.
Appropriate and Valid Certifications – Aeroplanes and Helicopters
An ACP must maintain appropriate and valid special authorizations/specific approvals certifications if evaluating technical capabilities such as RNP, RNP AR APCH, RVR 1200/600/300, CAT II/III, offshore instrument approaches, heads up display (HUD) or enhanced flight vision systems (EFVS).
These certifications, with respect to ACP authorities, are not dependent on an aircraft type.
Where it is not practical to maintain appropriate and valid certifications as part of an ACP’s own PPC requirements, aircraft familiarization training on at least one of the ACP’s authorized types may satisfy this requirement.
In the case of conducting GPS Approach Qualification checks, the ACP must have had a qualification check on one type of approved GPS, and if the check being conducted is not on the same make and model, then annual "hands on" differences training must have been completed.
Pilot-In-Command Experience
Be or have been employed as pilot-in-command on the aircraft category, type, or blanket type of aeroplane requested under the appropriate CARs Subpart.
Training and/or Checking Experience
Have experience as a training pilot or demonstrate equivalent knowledge, skill, and attitude as a qualified flight instructor, pilot examiner or simulator instructor. Training or checking experience on the type requested is an asset but not essential. Equivalent foreign and/or military experience may be acceptable;
Knowledge
Have knowledge of company operations manual(s), standard operating procedures, special authorizations/specific approvals, Aircraft Flight Manuals (AFMs), Minimum Equipment Lists (MELs), Safety Management System (SMS) and any other pertinent operational publications.
Minimum Flight Experience
3000 hours of total flight time.
1500 hours of pilot-in-command (PIC) flight time.
ACP authority regarding multi-engine aircraft:
500 hours PIC multi-engine time; and
100 hours PIC multi-engine time in the applicable aircraft category (e.g., aeroplane or helicopter) and class (e.g., land or sea).
ACP authority regarding PPC/IFRs:
Aeroplanes - 300 hours of instrument time where 150 hours PIC will be actual instrument flight time in the aircraft category of aeroplanes; or
Helicopters - 200 hours of instrument time where 100 hours PIC will be actual instrument flight time in the aircraft category of helicopters.
In addition to the minimum flight experience requirements above, ACPs must possess the following:
100 hours pilot-in-command time on all authorized individual type rated
aeroplanes and (individual type rated) multi-engine helicopters.
Aircraft Exposure(s)
Operational, training and/or instructional experience on each type is required. A Transport Canada Issuing Authority may consider line indoctrination, flight time, operational exposure, aircraft complexity and/or instructional training to establish the minimum experience required for each aircraft sought.
Recent Checking Experience
An ACP’s ongoing proficiency at conducting Flight Checks is paramount. The following is the recent checking experience requirement:
Flight Checks – Within the previous 12 months, conduct no fewer than (a combined total of) six PPCs and Line Checks.
History
No known history of any conviction under subsection 7.3(1) of the Aeronautics Act.
No known history of two or more convictions or administrative penalties, occurring during separate unrelated events, under the Canadian Aviation Regulations.
A reputable safety record as a pilot, based on factual recorded events regarding accidents or incidents (such as CADORs), where such records exist.
demonstrated a willingness to work both cooperatively and constructively with TCCA.
Professional Suitability (as defined in this manual)
Conflict of Interest
No conflict of interest that could undermine the candidate’s ability to fulfill the responsibilities of an ACP is acceptable.
Any potential conflicts of interests must be identified and documented along with the measures taken to ensure that the candidate’s ability to fulfill the responsibilities of an ACP is not compromised.
CARs Subpart Applicability
An ACP’s own PPC is normally conducted under the CARs Part VII Subpart applicable to the majority of operators and/or pilots they provide checking services to.
Any CARs Part VII Subpart, however, will allow an ACP to provide service any other CARs Part VII Subpart. For example, an ACP whose PPC is conducted under Subpart 704 of the CARs is able to conduct PPCs under Subparts 702, 703 and 705 of the CARs, subject to the authorities listed on the Letter of ACP Accreditation.
Sponsored ACPs
ACPs who are sponsored by an operator will have their PPC conducted at the frequency interval indicated by the training program of the operator with which they are associated. This will be in accordance with the CARs Subpart the operator operates under.
Unsponsored ACPs
ACPs who are not sponsored by an operator, will have their PPC conducted at the frequency interval indicated by the CARs Subpart as authorized by their ACP accreditation.
A valid PPC and a valid medical certificate (Medical Category 1) are required for the purpose of obtaining and maintaining an ACP accreditation.
Aircraft PPCs
During aircraft PPCs, ACPs will (as a minimum) participate as a flight crewmember (i.e., not a passenger) and contribute to safety of flight. ACPs are prohibited from conducting an aircraft PPC when aware of a medical condition that makes them unfit for duty whether or not temporary loss of medical privileges have been imposed.
Simulator PPCs
ACPs are required to advise their Transport Canada Issuing Authority in writing if they become unfit for an extended period of time (whether the medical certificate needed to be suspended or not) and then when they become fit again.
The ACP program recognizes situations where ACPs conducting simulator-only PPCs may not require a valid medical certificate (Medical Category 1).
Where an ACP’s medical certificate (Medical Category 1) expires or where a Transport Canada issuing authority has suspended or refused to renew an ACP’s medical certificate (Medical Category 1), the ACP may obtain authority to continue ACP duties in a simulator only provided an application for simulator-only authority is submitted.
ACPs granted ACP (Simulator-Only) authority must:
have held a valid CPL and ATPL pilot licence, an instrument rating and applicable type rating;
have experience as a line pilot with an operator; and
have Pilot-in-Command (PIC) experience on the aircraft type requested.
ACPs granted ACP (Simulator-Only) authority are subject to normal ACP Pilot Proficiency Check (PPC) requirements.
In order to mitigate administrative expenses and ensure due diligence while overseeing the ACP program, the Transport Canada Issuing Authority must establish need at a particular location or within a sponsoring operator when considering an ACP candidate’s application.
Establishing need is applicable to both initial and renewal applications for an ACP accreditation.
Establishing need is determined by:
number of Flight Checks expected to be conducted annually by the ACP candidate; and
number, proximity and availability of other ACPs who can provide the same service.
There are four ACP accreditation processes which related to ACP courses and/or monitors. They are categorized as initial, recurrent (i.e., renewal), revision, and requalification.
All successful ACP accreditation processes lead to (and are associated with) a Letter of ACP Accreditation. The validity (i.e., valid-to date) of a Letter of ACP Accreditation normally coincides with the validity of an ACP Course.
Initial ACP accreditation
Initial ACP accreditations are described in section 4.7 below.
Recurrent ACP accreditation
Recurrent ACP accreditations are described in section 4.8 below.
The key difference between an initial and recurrent (i.e., renewal) ACP accreditation is the requirement of a knowledge assessment.
Revision (to an) ACP accreditation
Revision to an ACP accreditation (e.g., the addition of a new aircraft type designation) may, in some circumstances, be accomplished administratively or in combination with an ACP Monitor (Recurrent).
Requalification (of an) ACP accreditation
Requalification of an ACP accreditation is applicable where all of the following have not lapsed by more than 24 months:
Letter of ACP Accreditation;
ACP Course; and
ACP Monitor (as required).
Normally, requalification is achieved by revalidating a lapsed ACP Course and/or ACP Monitor.
There are five basic steps to an initial ACP accreditation:
Step 1 – Initial ACP Accreditation Request & Candidate Pre-Assessment;
Step 2 – ACP Course (Initial);
Step 3 – Knowledge Assessment;
Step 4 – ACP Monitor (Initial); and
Step 5 – Transport Canada Briefing.
Prior to enrolling in an ACP Course (Initial), candidates seeking an ACP accreditation must first contact Transport Canada. ACP candidates will be asked to complete and forward an initial application.
The appropriate Transport Canada Issuing Authority will conduct a candidate pre-assessment which will include an assessment of the following:
need;
expectations and requirements;
professional suitability; and
other factor(s) unique to the ACP candidate.
As part of the candidate pre-assessment process, the Transport Canada Issuing Authority may contact current and previous employers in addition to reviewing documentation (e.g., training reports completed by the ACP candidate). An interview may also be scheduled.
Following a determination, the Transport Canada Issuing Authority will respond to the ACP candidate with a decision as to whether an ACP accreditation may be pursued.
The Transport Canada Issuing Authority must be contacted at least 30 days in advance of any proposed ACP Course, ACP Monitor or other assessment activities by Transport Canada.
ACP candidates must successfully complete a Transport Canada approved ACP Course (Initial) (both academic and practical phases) prior to proceeding to the knowledge and skills assessment conducted by Transport Canada. The academic phase is provided in a classroom setting (physical or virtual) whereas the practical phase is conducted in an FTD, FFS simulator or aircraft.
The curriculum for the ACP Course (Initial) is detailed in the document entitled Approved Check Pilot Program - Course Training Standard (RDIMS 5154456).
Additional Practical Training
The practical phase of the ACP Course (Initial) is designed to develop an ACP’s assessment skills only. The practical phase is not designed to develop skills associated with the following:
Managing an Instructor Operator Station (IOS) in a Full Flight Simulator; or
Acting as a safety pilot in an aircraft.
A candidate’s ACP Monitor (Initial) and subsequent monitors will take place under conditions of intended employment. If the conditions of intended employment involve the above, this training must be provided prior to an ACP Monitor.
To further enhance and develop their ACP competencies, ACP candidates should be scheduled to observe additional Flight Checks beyond the practical training prescribed in the Approved Check Pilot Program - Course Training Standard (RDIMS 5154456).
These additional exposures should be scheduled prior to the knowledge and skill assessment conducted by Transport Canada. They should also be relevant to their intended ACP authorization (i.e., CARs Subpart, IFR versus VFR, and ACPs (Type A) versus ACPs (Type B)).
Additional exposures should always be pursued with the consent of the pilot candidate(s) and operator involved.
Course Availability
Pilots who are sponsored by an operator will often attend an approved ACP Course (Initial) delivered by the operator itself. This training may also be outsourced.
All approved ACP Courses (Initial) available to ACP candidates not sponsored by an operator (i.e., public courses) are available through the Transport Canada ACP/AQP website.
ACP Course (Initial) Validity Period
Prior to Receiving a Valid Letter of ACP Accreditation
The validity period of the ACP Course (Initial) is 12 months. This means that an ACP candidate must complete an ACP Monitor (Initial) within 12 months of the ACP Course (Initial) completion date. The valid-to date is calculated as follow:
23:59 local time on the first (1st) day of the thirteenth (13th) month following the completion date of the ACP Course (Initial).
After Receiving a Valid Letter of ACP Accreditation
The validity period of the ACP Course (Initial or Recurrent) is 36 months. The valid-to date is calculated as follows:
23:59 local time on the first (1st) day of the thirty-seventh (37th) month following the completion date of the ACP Course (Initial or Recurrent).
An ACP Course (Initial or Recurrent) may be renewed within the last 90 days of its validity period. In this case, the ensuing validity period is extended by 36 months based on the original valid-to date.
Extensions
A Transport Canada Issuing Authority may extend the validity period of an ACP (Initial) by up to sixty (60) days where, in the opinion of the Transport Canada Issuing Authority, aviation safety is not likely to be affected.
Course Variations
The most common and widely applicable ACP Course (Initial) is that designed for ACPs (Type A) who will conduct PPC/IFRs in a simulator. The information below addresses course variations for ACPs (Type A - VFR Only) and ACPs (Type B).
These courses are provided by a number of Transport Canada approved public course providers.
ACP (Type A - VFR Only) Training
Academic Phase
ACP (Type A - VFR Only) candidates have the option of attending either an approved ACP Course (Initial) designed to address PPC/IFRs or an approved course specifically designed to address PPC/VFRs.
Practical Phase – Public Course Option
ACP (Type A - VFR Only) candidates are only required to be trained and assessed on how to conduct a PPC/VFR.
Practical Phase – Air Operator Option
ACP (Type A - VFR Only) candidates are only required to be trained and assessed on how to conduct a PPC/VFR. This training may be delivered by an air operator utilizing an ACP.
Training Requirements
ACP Delivering Training Requirements
An ACP delivering training must possess at least two years of experience as an ACP and use the practical training objectives stated in the ACP Course Training Standard (CTS), RDIMS 5154456.
Record of Training
An ACP candidate must retain a copy of practice documents that were completed during training prior to an ACP Monitor (Initial) for validation purposes.
ACP Candidate Evaluation Flight
A Transport Canada Issuing Authority may conduct an evaluation flight on an ACP (Type A - VFR only) candidate that may either precede or be in combination with an ACP Monitor (Initial). The purpose of this evaluation would be to assess the ACP candidate’s level of competence acting as a safety pilot during VFR manoeuvres.
ACP (Type A) Training – Sponsoring Air Operator Option
Academic Phase
(Reserved)
Practical Phase
(Reserved)
ACP (Type B) Training – Sponsoring Air Operator Option
Academic Phase
ACPs (Type A) and ACPs (Type B) must possess a number of similar skills and competencies. The academic phase of an ACP Course (Initial) designed to address PPC/IFRs likely addresses the requirements of an ACP (Type B) candidate. ACP course providers should be consulted.
Practical Phase
ACP (Type B) candidates are only required to be trained and assessed in conducting a Line Check.
Additional information concerning ACP (Type B) training requirements is found in Advisory Circular (AC) 705-003.
Aim
The aim of the knowledge assessment is to ensure that an ACP candidate has sufficient familiarity with the publications and associated policies that apply to the conduct (and administration) of a Flight Check.
A practical understanding of this information and knowledge of aviation regulations (and practices) is observed later during a candidate’s ACP Monitor.
Scheduling
The knowledge assessment and ACP Monitor (Initial) may be conducted during the same scheduled event or separately. As a minimum, the knowledge assessment and ACP
Monitor (Initial) must both occur within 30 days unless approved by the Transport Canada Issuing Authority.
Upon the successful completion of an approved ACP Course (Initial), ACP candidates (or their sponsoring organizations) must coordinate an ACP knowledge assessment conducted by Transport Canada.
Preparation and Conduct
An assigned Transport Canada CASI will assess the ACP candidate’s level of knowledge in relation to the ACP accreditation sought (e.g., ACP (Type A - VFR Only) under Subpart 702 of the CARs).
The knowledge assessment will be conducted orally or in writing using questions that are drawn primarily from the references provided below. The prepared/documented questions used to conduct the knowledge assessment may be supplemented by an oral discussion to address any area that is not included in the documented knowledge assessment.
Candidates may reference source documentation to respond to questions. Candidates are responsible to provide any necessary reference source documentation.
Knowledge Assessment / Study Guidance
The knowledge assessment will include questions drawn from any of the following topics and reference documents:
the procedures and technique associated with conducting a Flight Check;
the technique and standards used in the assessment and evaluation of a Flight Check;
briefing and debriefing procedures and requirements;
completion of the Flight Check forms (e.g., Transport Canada Online PPC Flight Test Report (previously forms 26-0249/26-0279));
completion of the Application for Endorsement of a Rating (Form 26-0083); and
the content and application of the following:
Part I of the CARs - Specifically the fee schedule;
Part IV of the CARs - Personnel Licensing;
(C) Subparts 601, 602, 604, 605, 702, 703, 704, 705 of the CARs, and
associated CARs Part VII Commercial Air Service Standards (CASS), as appropriate;
Transport Canada Publication TP 6533 - Approved Check Pilot Manual;
TP 14727 - Pilot Proficiency Check and Aircraft Type Rating - Flight Test Guide (Aeroplane), as applicable;
TP 14728 - Pilot Proficiency Check and Aircraft Type Rating - Flight Test Guide (Helicopter), as applicable;
Transport Canada Aeronautical Information Manual (TC AIM);
Authorized person accreditation (found in the Approved Check Pilot Manual);
Canada air pilot (CAP) or a similar publication acceptable to the minister;
Instrument Procedures Manual, Aviation Publishers Co. Ltd., (ISBN 978- 0-9730036-9-7);
Manual of All Weather Operations (TP1490) as required.
Canada Flight Supplement;
Operator's COM, operating certificate and operations specifications, SOPs and AOM(s)/FCOM(s), as applicable;
Appropriate CARs Part VII Commercial Air Service Standard (CASS) – PPC Schedule(s);
Commercial and Business Aviation Advisory Circulars, Advisory Circulars, ACP Bulletins, and other related pertinent guidance materials.
Knowledge of Conflict of Interest; and
Knowledge of Liability through the exercise of an ACP’s accreditation (found in the Approved Check Pilot Manual).
Unsuccessful Knowledge Assessment
If during the knowledge assessment the ACP candidate is not successful, the ACP candidate will not proceed to the skill assessment (i.e., ACP Monitor (Initial)).
The ACP candidate will be debriefed on the areas that require remedial training and/or additional self-study and a subsequent knowledge and skill assessment will be required.
During a subsequent knowledge assessment, the candidate will be required to present evidence to the Transport Canada CASI of remedial training and/or additional self-study.
The skill assessment requirement is satisfied by way of an ACP Monitor (Initial).
During an ACP Monitor (Initial), the ACP candidate will be expected to demonstrate their skill to act as an ACP by conducting an appropriate PPC or Line Check.
Flight Checks used for this purpose should involve regular line operational crews. The use of other ACPs, training or supervisory pilots is strongly discouraged.
ACP candidates seeking authority for more than one aircraft type must demonstrate the skill to conduct a Flight Check on (at least) one of the aircraft types for which an ACP authority is requested. Additional ACP monitors on different aircraft types may be required by the Transport Canada Issuing Authority. The aircraft type(s) chosen will be at the discretion of the Transport Canada Issuing Authority and based (in part) on the scope of the ACP accreditation being sought.
Check Pilot of Record
An initial ACP candidate is not qualified to conduct a PPC, the check pilot of record will, therefore, be the CASI.
Upon successful completion of an ACP Monitor (Initial), the CASI will submit the appropriate Transport Canada Online PPC Flight Test Report (previously forms 26- 0249/26-0279).
Candidate Role-Playing (As Required)
For some aircraft types and/or configurations, conducting an ACP Monitor (Initial) during an actual PPC may not be practical. In such cases, a Transport Canada CASI may be assigned to role-play the flight test candidate.
Scenarios may or may not prompt an unsuccessful flight test assessment but must include performances that are reasonable containing some minor and/or major errors/deviations.
Unsuccessful Skills Assessment - ACP Monitor (Initial)
In the event that the skills assessment (i.e., ACP Monitor (Initial)) is assessed as unsuccessful, the CASI will debrief the ACP candidate on the areas that require remedial training prior to reapplying for a subsequent assessment.
During a subsequent skills assessment, the candidate will be required to present evidence to the Transport Canada CASI of remedial training and/or additional self-study. Additionally, a subsequent skills assessment may necessitate a partial or complete knowledge reassessment.
Additional information on ACP Monitors (including performance standards) is found in Advisory Circular AC 700-051.
The Transport Canada briefing may be combined with an overall debrief of the knowledge assessment and ACP Monitor (Initial) or provided following the knowledge assessment.
A CASI will provide the ACP candidate the Transport Canada briefing which is designed to supplement the ACP candidate’s knowledge. It may include the following topics appropriate to the ACP candidate’s accreditation:
Delegation by Minister (i.e., ACP accreditation);
Principles of evaluation;
Conducting PPCs and/or Line Checks on behalf of the Minister;
Administrative / Authorized Person procedures; and
Other advice.
The sequencing of this briefing relative to the knowledge assessment and ACP Monitor (Initial) will depend on several factors that may include the following:
whether the ACP Monitor (Initial) is conducted in a simulator or aircraft; and
which Transport Canada region (or National Operations) is conducting the assessment.
There are three basic steps in a recurrent ACP accreditation:
Step 1 – ACP Recurrent Request;
Step 2 – ACP Course (Recurrent); and
Step 3 – ACP Monitor (Recurrent).
Transport Canada will not notify an ACP of an expiring ACP accreditation.
When requesting to renew an ACP accreditation, ACPs must continue to satisfy the following:
need
general ACP requirements:
ACP Course (Recurrent) requirements; and
ACP Monitor (Recurrent) requirements.
Renewal of an ACP accreditation must be requested in writing by the ACP at least ninety (90) days prior to the validity period’s expiration date. The request must include the following:
copy of the ACP Course (Recurrent) completion certificate;
list of aircraft types requested; and
the CARs Subparts and areas of ACP activity requested.
Expired Validity Periods
Where the validity period for an ACP Course has been expired for 24 months or more, the ACP shall re-qualify by attending the academic and practical portions of an ACP Course (Initial).
When a new ACP accreditation is issued, the validity period will be based on the most recent ACP Course completion date.
The curriculum for the ACP Course (Recurrent) is detailed in the document entitled Approved Check Pilot Program - Course Training Standard (RDIMS 5154456).
The academic phase (i.e., theory portion) of an ACP Course (Initial) meets the requirements of an ACP Course (Recurrent).
ACP Course (Recurrent) Validity Period
The validity period of the ACP Course (Initial or Recurrent) is 36 months. The valid-to date is calculated as follows:
23:59 local time on the first (1st) day of the thirty-seventh (37th) month following the completion date of the initial or recurrent ACP Course (Recurrent).
An ACP Course (Recurrent or Initial) may be renewed within the last 90 days of its validity period. In this case the ensuing validity period is extended by 36 months based on the original valid-to date.
Eligibility
An ACP Course (Recurrent) may be credited towards an ACP accreditation if a previous ACP Course (Recurrent or Initial) has not lapsed for more than 24 months.
Extensions
A Transport Canada Issuing Authority may extend the validity period of an ACP Course (Recurrent) by up to sixty (60) days where, in the opinion of the Transport Canada Issuing Authority, aviation safety is not likely to be affected.
The purpose of the ACP Monitor (Recurrent) is to verify that a uniform standard is applied during the conduct of Flight Checks. An ACP Monitor (Recurrent) is very similar to an ACP Monitor (Initial) with the exception that if qualified, the ACP being monitored will complete and submit the Transport Canada Online PPC Flight Test Report (previously forms 26-0249/26-0279) and any other required documentation.
Check Pilot of Record
Where an ACP candidate is qualified to conduct the PPC, the check pilot of record will normally be the ACP candidate.
PPCs versus Line Checks
Monitors of ACPs (Type A) will always be conducted during actual or mock PPC events.
Monitors of ACPs (Type B) are not required to maintain an ACP (Type B) accreditation.
Aircraft Type
Where an ACP (Type A) is authorized to conduct PPCs on more than one aircraft type, the aircraft type upon which the ACP Monitor is conducted is at the discretion of their Transport Canada Issuing Authority.
A single ACP Monitor may or may not cover all authorized aircraft types.
Candidate Role-Playing (As Required)
For some aircraft types and/or configurations, conducting an ACP Monitor (Recurrent) during an actual PPC may not be practical. In such cases, the person conducting a monitor may be assigned to role-play the flight test candidate.
Scenarios may or may not prompt an unsuccessful flight test assessment but must include performances that are reasonable containing some minor and/or major errors/deviations.
Use of a Flight Training Device (FTD) –Subparts 702 and 703 of the CARs
For an ACP Monitor (Recurrent) on an ACP (Type A) who only conducts aeroplane or helicopter PPCs in an aircraft (i.e., not a full flight simulator (FFS)) under CARs subparts 702 and 703, it is permissible to use a Level 7 flight training device (FTD) to conduct the Monitor if the FTD has an operating motion cueing system.
In such cases it is accepted that the PPC will be ‘simulated’ given that there is no current approval to conduct a PPC in an FTD. Despite the simulated nature, the monitor must include all phases of an ACP Monitor and should represent a normal PPC.
An FTD shall not be used for an ACP Monitor (Initial) or any Monitor if there is no operating motion cueing system.
Validity Period
The Monitor (Recurrent) validity period for an ACP (Type A) is normally twenty-four (24) months. A Transport Canada Issuing Authority may establish an ACP Monitor (Recurrent)
validity period of twelve (12) months in response to various criteria adversely affecting risk levels. These include:
assessed performance;
simulator versus aircraft;
IFR versus VFR;
regulatory subpart(s),
aircraft complexity; or
other factors.
In the case of a twenty-four (24) month validity, the valid-to date is calculated as follows:
23:59 local time on the first (1st) day of the twenty-fifth (25th) month following the completion date of an ACP Monitor (Recurrent).
In the case of a twelve (12) month validity, the valid-to-date is calculated as follows:
23:59 local time on the first (1st) day of the thirteenth (13th) month following the completion date of an ACP Monitor (Recurrent).
Renewal
An ACP Monitor (Recurrent) may be renewed within the last 90 days of its validity period. In this case the ensuing validity period is extended by either twenty-four (24) or twelve
(12) months based on the original valid-to date.
Extensions to an ACP (Type A) Monitor Validity Period
A Transport Canada Issuing Authority may extend the validity period of an ACP Monitor by up to sixty (60) days where, in the opinion of the Transport Canada Issuing Authority, aviation safety is not likely to be affected.
Any extension to a validity period must be requested by the ACP in writing prior to the end of the current ACP Monitor valid-to date.
Where the validity period of an ACP Monitor has been extended and subsequently renewed after the original valid-to date, a new valid-to date will be calculated in accordance with the applicable monitoring interval based on when the actual ACP Monitor was completed.
Unsuccessful Skills Assessment - ACP Monitor (Recurrent)
In the event that the ACP Monitor (Recurrent) is assessed as unsuccessful, the CASI will debrief the ACP on the areas that require remedial training prior to reapplying for a subsequent assessment.
During a subsequent assessment, the ACP will be required to present evidence to the CASI of remedial training and/or additional self-study. A subsequent ACP Monitor (Recurrent) may necessitate a knowledge assessment.
Additional information on ACP Monitors (including performance standards) is found in Advisory Circular AC 700-051.
Formal authority for an ACP to conduct Flight Checks is provided through the issuance of a Letter of ACP Accreditation. The Letter of ACP Accreditation is considered a Canadian Aviation Document (CAD).
In the Letter of ACP Accreditation, conditions of the ACP’s accreditation are specified which normally include:
ACP accreditation type (e.g., ACP (Type A), ACP (Type B), ACP (Type A - VFR Only) and/or ACP (Type M));
air operator sponsorship (as applicable);
CARs Subpart(s) under which the ACP is authorized to conduct Flight Checks;
authorized individual aircraft type(s) and any specific limitations;
authorized blanket aeroplane types(s), associated aircraft class ratings and any specific limitations;
Authorized Person privileges as applicable; and
other information (e.g., GPS, FMS and particular avionics) deemed important by a Transport Canada Issuing Authority.
An ACP’s accreditation may be cancelled or suspended for any breach of a condition of issuance, administrative reason or for any other reason set out in sections 6.9 to 7.1 of the Aeronautics Act or in the CARs.
Upon completion of a successful ACP Monitor (Initial), an ACP can normally expect to receive their Letter of ACP Accreditation within 15 working days as indicated in TP14984. The ACP should not schedule any Flight Check activities until in possession of their letter.
The validity period of an ACP accreditation is normally 36 months.
The validity period of an ACP accreditation is normally synchronized with an ACP Course (Initial or Recurrent) validity period and documented on a Letter of ACP Accreditation.
Validity Period Extensions
The validity period of an ACP accreditation may be extended by the Transport Canada Issuing Authority up to a maximum of sixty (60) days under certain circumstances.
Where an ACP is sponsored by an air operator, a Letter of ACP Accreditation may or may not specify a valid-to date. Where no valid-to date is provided, the letter will normally stipulate, among other conditions, that the valid-to date is based on the completion date of the most recent and applicable ACP course.
(1) A Transport Canada Issuing Authority will issue a letter of revocation to an ACP under Section
103.07 of the CARs where the ACP advises the Minister that the ACP accreditation is no longer desired, or the Minister deems that an ACP accreditation is no longer required.
A Transport Canada Issuing Authority may review an ACP’s accreditation for a number of reasons including:
failing to meet the qualification requirements or fulfill the maintenance conditions of the ACP’s accreditation; or
public interest.
A Transport Canada Issuing Authority may, pursuant to subsection 7.1(1) of the Act, suspend, cancel or refuse to renew an ACP’s accreditation. A Transport Canada Issuing Authority may, pursuant to subsection 6.71(1) of the Act, refuse to issue or amend an ACP’s accreditation. Prior to making a decision that would affect an ACP’s accreditation in this manner, the Transport Canada Issuing Authority would ensure the following:
the ACP has been provided the opportunity to respond to the allegations; and
a report with recommendations has been created for the Transport Canada Issuing Authority’s consideration.
The ACP is entitled to procedural safeguards, under the Aeronautics Act, including recourse to the Transportation Appeals Tribunal of Canada (TATC).
The responsibility of ensuring that an ACP accreditation is valid while conducting a Flight Check and exercising authorized person (AP) privileges rests with the ACP.
Flight Check Ramifications
When a Flight Check has been conducted by an ACP whose accreditation is invalid or expired, the Flight Check itself will be considered invalid.
The Transport Canada Issuing Authority may revalidate the Flight Check if, upon review it can be determined that the level of or potential risk to the public is minimal.
When reviewing the circumstances of an invalid or expired ACP accreditation, the ACP will be required to submit information explaining the incident. A Transport Canada Issuing Authority will seek to determine if this was an isolated incident and/or an unintentional oversight. Repeated and/or intentional oversights will be examined further.
In all cases, the Transport Canada Issuing Authority will request a meeting with the ACP to review the ACP’s qualifications and record keeping responsibilities. Conducting a PPC with an expired ACP Monitor could result in a shorter period between monitors and increased surveillance.
ACP Monitors conducted by CASIs are subject to Civil Aviation Directive CAD FIN-003 (Recovering the Incremental Costs of Providing Services Inside/Outside Canada). The following identifies circumstances that factor in cost recovery:
within or outside of normal business hours;
inside or outside of Canada; and
Individual or company sponsored.
Cost recovery must be coordinated prior to an ACP Monitor taking place. ACPs are advised to familiarize themselves with the latest cost recovery policies of their region.
This assessment is required where the validity period of an ACP’s last monitor has not expired by more than 24 months. It is normally conducted by a CASI.
An ACP Monitor (Requalification) is normally valid 24 months.
Consult AC 700-051 and/or contact Transport Canada for more information.
This assessment is occasionally required for the purpose of revising authorizations on a Letter of ACP Accreditation. It is normally conducted by a CASI. A revision to ACP authorizations may also be accomplished administratively.
An ACP Monitors (Revision) is normally valid 24 months.
Consult AC 700-051 and/or contact Transport Canada for more information.
An ACP Monitor (Administrative) is a remote review conducted by a Transport Canada Issuing Authority. This review is normally provided in conjunction with an ACP Monitor (Recurrent, Requalification or Revision) and will normally occur at least every twenty-four (24) months.
A Transport Canada Issuing Authority may take action if an ACP has not complied with the Pilot Proficiency Check and Aircraft Type Rating - Flight Test Guide (Aeroplane) (TP14727), Pilot Proficiency Check and Aircraft Type Rating - Flight Test Guide (Helicopter) (TP14728) or is found to have any of the following:
assessment scores well above or below national averages;
Flight Check (flight) times that are consistently much shorter or longer than the national averages; or
Flight Check written comments in the GENERAL ASSESSMENT section of the Transport Canada Online PPC Flight Test Report (previously forms 26-0249/26-0279) that do not adequately support the mark awarded.
ACPs and the conduct of Flight Checks are closely monitored at the discretion of their Transport Canada Issuing Authority. A Transport Canada Issuing Authority may choose to monitor any Flight Check conducted by an ACP (Type A) within the ACP’s monitor validity period.
A revised validity period may or may not be established.
Complaints
An operator and/or a Flight Check candidate has recourse to file a complaint concerning an ACP’s conduct that displays inappropriate or unprofessional behaviour. Complaints
should be forwarded to the Transport Canada region (or National Operations) responsible for the ACP.
The Transport Canada Issuing Authority will review the nature of the complaint and determine if remedial action is required. The Transport Canada Issuing Authority could respond by dismissing the complaint or coordinating a complete re-test without prejudice to the candidate’s record by another ACP.
All complaints will be reviewed carefully, without bias and in the interests of the ACP, operator and/or Flight Check candidate.
Non-Conformances and Actions
When a non-conformance or concern is identified, the Transport Canada Issuing Authority will determine an appropriate response based on the circumstances and severity.
Actions taken could include any of the following: counseling, enhanced monitoring, limiting, suspending and/or canceling an authority.
Evaluation is the overall process of defining, observing and measuring a candidate’s performance. ACPs follow this process in the delivery of Flight Check services.
In evaluating pilot performance, ACPs determine whether a candidate meets all required criteria of performance detailed in applicable guidance documentation.
Observed performance must be analyzed and form the basis of an assessment. This assessment must focus primarily on the following:
candidate deficiencies; and
specific degrees of knowledge, skills and attitudes.
In addition to the candidate’s performance, ACPs must consider and report to the operator the following:
any area of weak candidate instruction;
any area of a weak training syllabus; and
any area of an air operator flight documentation that is inconsistent and unapproved with respect to primary information sources (e.g., latest AFM changes).
The generic flight evaluation process has five components:
Aim
The first component determines the objective of each Flight Check exercise. Since it would be meaningless to evaluate the candidate's performance without considering what that performance should be, the process of evaluation should begin with clearly defined objectives.
Standard
To be proficient in evaluating a candidate's performance during a Flight Check, the ACP must be completely familiar with the standard for each item.
Performance
An ACP assigns tasks or manoeuvres for the candidate to perform.
Observation
The ACP observes the candidate’s performance objectively.
Assessment
Based on observation of the candidate's performance, the ACP assesses the performance and assigns a mark.
Evaluations of pilot performance are subject to the following factors that the ACP must be aware to ensure an unbiased analysis of their observations:
reliability;
validity;
comprehensiveness;
discrimination; and
objectivity.
Reliability
Ideally, two identical performances will result in identical Flight Check assessments. There are, however, human factors that can have a significant effect on Flight Check reliability.
Human factors include, but are not limited to the following:
Fatigue - insufficient sleep or rest prior to the Flight Check;
Emotions - work or home related personal problems;
Health - cold or flu, etc.;
Time of day - very early in the morning, or last trip of the day, being rushed; and
Distractions - noise, interruptions, etc.
Validity
Flight Checks are valid if they measure what they are supposed to measure and nothing else. The scope of a Flight Check must be such that when candidates pass, they have met all of the required standards.
Comprehensiveness
A Flight Check is comprehensive if it conforms to the items required in the Flight Check guidance documentation with no additions or deletions.
Discrimination
Discrimination enables the ACP to detect different levels of performance among candidates. Discrimination separates standard performance from above and below standard performance.
A standardized marking scale used during Flight Checks is designed to assess candidates’ performances and allow for a greater degree of discrimination rather than a simple pass or fail of a flight test exercise.
Objectivity
Objectivity ensures the ACP’s personal opinions do not affect the outcome or assessment of the Flight Check.
ACPs must endeavor to remain objective at all times and evaluate Flight Check performance objectively.
In order to assess effectively, ACPs requires a firm understanding of possible evaluation errors that can occur during a Flight Check. Errors in evaluation fall into several categories, they are:
Personal Bias;
Central Tendency;
Generosity;
Severity;
Halo Effect;
Stereotype;
Logical;
Narrow Criterion;
Delayed Grading; and
Standards.
Personal Bias
Personal bias error is indicated by the tendency of an ACP to rate candidates or a particular group of candidates the same. An ACP must not allow personal prejudices to interfere with the objective evaluation of a candidate's performance.
Central Tendency
Central tendency error is indicated by a tendency to rate all or most candidates as average. The ACP may feel that the performance of most candidates is not as good as it should be and therefore underscores good performance.
On the other hand, if the ACP is reluctant to cope with the possible emotional response of a candidate (or a recommending instructor) following a poor performance, an inflated assessment may result. An average versus lower mark is viewed as less contentious.
Generosity
Generosity errors are indicated by a tendency to rate all individuals at the high end of the marking scale. This could be caused by an ACP’s desire to be known as a favourable person.
Severity
Severity errors are opposite to generosity errors and result in all or most candidates being graded at the low end of the marking scale. ACPs may feel that published standards are too low and will instead rate performance against their own set of standards.
Halo Effect
Halo effect error occurs when an ACP’s impression of a candidate is allowed to influence the assessment of performance. Halo effect error can result in rating an applicant either too high or too low.
One form of halo error is the error of leniency. Leniency has its source in an ACP’s likes, dislikes, opinions, prejudices, moods and political or community influence of people. For example, when testing a friend or high-profile individual, an ACP may (knowingly or unknowingly) inflate the marks.
Stereotype
Stereotype errors also have their source in likes, dislikes, opinions, prejudices, etc. ACPs might allow personal opinion or prejudice to influence the assessment of the candidate and might (knowingly or unknowingly) deflate or inflate the marks.
Logical
Logical errors occur when an ACP assumes that a high degree of ability in one area implies a similar degree of competence in another area. This is especially true if the two items being assessed are similar or related.
A good mark on one or two flight test exercises does not mean the candidate is competent on all items.
Narrow Criterion
Narrow criterion errors might occur when an ACP has a group of candidates to test. The ACP might, under these conditions rate each candidate against the others within the group instead of against a published standard.
If the group being evaluated is above average, a candidate who is of average ability might be awarded an undeservedly low mark. If the group of candidates is below average, then a candidate who performs the best within this group might be awarded a higher assessment than deserved.
When working with a group of candidates, there might also be a tendency to compare one candidate to another. When conducting a flight test, however, compare the candidate’s performance to an expressed standard and not to a person who is more or less skilled.
Delayed Grading
Delayed grading error occurs when there is a delay in the assessment of an exercise, resulting in a tendency to award average marks due to the lack of information and/or poor recall. By not assessing an exercise immediately, ACPs might assess performance based on an overall impression of the Flight Check.
Standard
Standard errors occur when an ACP is not thoroughly familiar with established performance criteria. It is virtually impossible to conduct an accurate evaluation without this knowledge.
Oral questions during the ground portion of a Flight Check should be considered and prepared to ensure validity, relevancy and clarity. Good questions are easily understood and composed of common words. They should also measure applicable knowledge and not the use of language.
Questions should also be practical and operational in nature. Trick or irrelevant questions must be avoided as should theoretical questions.
When preparing questions, the correct answer should be considered first and then the question formulated that will elicit that answer. Each question should focus on one idea only. The ACP can guide the candidate through a complex procedure by asking what, why, where, when and how after asking an initial basic question.
Questions (during the ground portion of the check) should encourage the candidate to think. Questions that merely require a yes or no response doesn’t effectively reveal a candidate’s level of understanding. It is more beneficial to guide the candidate’s thought process towards an area to be questioned so that they can situate themselves and provide a more informed response.
Questions posed during the aircraft portion of a check should be limited to situations where clarifications are required. Questions must not distract the candidate from task performance, inject confusion or induce a loss of situational awareness.
Assessing Responses
When assessing a candidate’s answer, the ACP’s role is different from an instructor’s role. ACPs are required to observe and evaluate but not correct.
ACPs should avoid confirming an answer either positively or negatively. By responding with, for example, “No, that’s incorrect”, a candidate’s self-confidence and performance may be undermined.
While ACPs should avoid leading candidates to the correct answer, requests for clarification are allowed.
Overview
The 4-Point Marking Scale is used to assess and grade a candidate’s proficiency. It includes both technical and non-technical proficiency assessment elements and is the basis for a decision regarding a successful or unsuccessful Flight Check.
Assessment Elements
Understanding and Use
A comprehensive knowledge of the 4-Point Marking Scale’s proficiency assessment elements is essential so that marks and supportive comments can be accurately determined and withstand scrutiny.
The 4-Point Marking Scale (Grading Matrix) is provided to assist ACPs during an assessment.
Technical and Non-technical Proficiency Sub-elements
Information on proficiency sub-elements found in this chapter is not repeated in the 4-Point Marking Scale (Grading Matrix). This information, however, should be referenced as necessary when assessing observations and drafting flight test exercise comments on a flight test report.
The 4-Point Marking Scale presently contains the following technical and non-technical proficiency elements for assessments:
Technical Knowledge and Skills;
Aircraft Handling;
Situational Awareness;
Cooperation;
Decision Making; and
Leadership and Managerial Skills.
Technical knowledge and skills is a technical proficiency assessment element.
Technical knowledge and skills is comprised of three sub-elements:
Flight Crew Actions or Inactions – Error Assessments
Errors are qualitative assessments of an action or inaction that leads to a variation from flight crew standards. Errors have been incorporated consistent with the definition of an undesired aircraft state (UAS).
Errors are defined within the 4-Point Marking Scale (Grading Matrix) and incorporate the definition of an undesired aircraft state (UAS). Errors are classified as either slight, minor, major or critical.
Practical Knowledge
The understanding and practical use of aircraft systems, automation interfaces and operating procedures.
The understanding and practical use of all applicable information necessary for safe flight such as performance data, charts, weather information and physiological factors.
A competency that ‘gets the job done’ safely and efficiently.
Following SOPs/ Rules/ Regulations
Knowledge of and adherence to SOPs, rules and regulations by the candidate and the flight crew.
Technical proficiency requirements of each flight test exercise are identified in any of the following:
TP 14727 - Pilot Proficiency Check and Aircraft Type Rating - Flight Test Guide (Aeroplane); or
TP 14728 - Pilot Proficiency Check and Aircraft Type Rating - Flight Test Guide (Helicopter); and
other sources such as AFMs/HFMs, SOPs, MMELs etc.
Assessments of technical knowledge and skills are mostly qualitative.
Aircraft handling is a technical proficiency assessment element.
Aircraft Handling is comprised two sub-elements:
Precision and handling – Deviation Assessments
The aircraft’s flight path vector is assessed relative to assigned parameters. The stability of aircraft handling is assessed with respect to smoothness, coordination and appropriateness of control inputs throughout all levels of automation.
The use of techniques or procedures, the performance relative to specified tolerances, actions taken when deviations occur, magnitude of deviations and promptness of corrections are considered in assessments of this sub-element.
The ability to control the aircraft during abnormal or emergency situations is assessed.
Deviations are defined within the 4-Point Marking Scale (Grading Matrix) are classified as either slight, minor, major or critical.
Compliance with regulatory and aircraft limitations.
Aircraft handling flight test exercise tolerances are found in either of the following:
TP 14727 - Pilot Proficiency Check and Aircraft Type Rating - Flight Test Guide (Aeroplane); or
TP 14728 - Pilot Proficiency Check and Aircraft Type Rating - Flight Test Guide (Helicopter)
Assessments of aircraft handling are both quantitative and qualitative.
Situational awareness is a non-technical proficiency assessment element.
Situational awareness is defined as an ability to accurately perceive what is taking place inside and outside the aircraft, or simply put, knowing what is going on. It precisely relates to the perception of the elements in the environment within a specified time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future.
Situational awareness is comprised of three sub-elements:
System Awareness
Recognizing and anticipating the mode and state of aircraft systems.
Environmental Awareness
Being aware of an active environment that includes airspace, weather conditions, traffic separation, and terrain clearance.
Collecting information about the environment and contacting outside resources when necessary.
Sharing key information about the environment with crew members.
Awareness of Time and Anticipation of Future Events
Being aware of time and anticipated future events relating not only to the aircraft’s physical movement and energy state but also fuel management.
Discussing time constraints and contingency strategies.
Identifying possible future problems.
Communication is the medium through which situational awareness can be assessed.
Assessments of situational awareness are qualitative.
Cooperation is a non-technical proficiency assessment element.
Cooperation is defined as the ability to work effectively as a crew. It does not refer to the work itself or the quality and quantity of output.
Good cooperation is largely dependent on active and open communication between crewmembers and external entities (e.g., ATC).
Cooperation is comprised of four sub-elements:
Team Building and Maintaining
Establishing positive interpersonal relations, open communications and active participation of crew members in fulfilling tasks.
Encouraging input and feedback while not competing with others.
Consideration of Others
Taking notice of the suggestions of other crew members even if not in agreement.
Considering the condition of other crew members.
Providing personal feedback.
Support of Others
Helping other crew members in demanding situations.
Offering assistance.
Resolving Conflicts
Remaining calm during interpersonal conflicts.
Suggesting conflict solutions.
Concentrating on what is right rather than who is wrong.
Assessments of cooperation are qualitative.
Decision making is a non-technical proficiency assessment element.
Decision making is defined as the process of making a judgment call or choosing an option.
Various decision points differ enormously in what they demand of the crew, what options and supports exist in SOPs and policies for making decisions, and what features may make the situation difficult or error-prone.
Decision-making is comprised of four sub-elements:
Problem Definition / Diagnosis
Defining a problem is dependent upon one’s situational awareness and attending to critical information. It also relies upon avoiding perception errors.
Gathering information (by an individual) to identify a problem is observed.
Reviewing causal factors with other crew members.
Option Generation
Generating options through an unbiased collective effort where possible.
Stating alternative options.
Seeking opinions from crew members.
Risk Assessment
Assessing risks by way of an unbiased and collective effort where possible, subject to time available.
Considering and sharing risks of alternative options.
Talking about potential risks in terms of crew limitations.
Option Selection
Confirming and stating selected option and/or agreed upon action.
Outcome Review
Incorporating a measure of evaluation when a decision is implemented.
Checking outcomes against a plan.
Assessments of decision making are qualitative.
Leadership and managerial skills are a non-technical proficiency assessment element.
Leadership and managerial skills are the active and goal-directed coordination of the working activities within the crew. While all crew members are expected to initiate safe and efficient achievement of the flight goals, the final and legal responsibility for the operation on the whole rests, undivided, with the pilot-in-command.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) defines a leader as a person whose ideas and actions influence the thought and the behaviour of others. The leader is a means of change and influence. It is important to distinguish between leadership which is acquired and authority which is assigned. Leadership is one aspect of teamwork and the success of a leader depends on the positive qualities of his/her relationship with the team.
Leadership and managerial skills are comprised of four sub-elements:
Use of Authority and Assertiveness (Pilot-in-Command Only)
Balancing between a required assertiveness and fostering crew member participation. If situation requires, decisive actions are expected.
Providing and Maintaining Standards
Ensuring compliance with standards (e.g., SOPs). Mutually supervising and intervening in cases of deviations from standards. Applying non-standard procedures where such deviations are communicated to and/or developed in consultation with the flight crew.
A willingness to achieve top performance via adherence to standards.
Planning and Coordination
Participating in planning and task completion by crew members.
Stating and confirming plans. Clearly stating goals and boundaries.
Changing plans where necessary and consulting crew members.
Workload Management
Prioritizing primary and secondary operational tasks.
Distributing tasks appropriately among crew members based on sound planning.
Allotting adequate time to accomplish required tasks.
Communicating and taking into account signs of stress and fatigue as factors affecting performance.
Using available external and internal resources (including automation) to accomplish tasks in the required time.
Assessments of leadership and management skills are qualitative.
A 2006 University of Texas paper titled Defensive Flying for Pilots: An Introduction to Threat and Error Management defined an undesired aircraft state (UAS) as the following:
“… a position, speed, attitude or configuration of an aircraft that: results from flight crew error, action or inactions; and clearly reduces safety margins.”
This definition has been incorporated into the 4-Point Marking Scale.
The following adjectives and associated definitions are used in the 4-Point Marking Scale:
Effective – A result that is correct.
Acceptable – A result that is satisfactory or allowable.
Poor – A result that is worse than usual, expected or desirable.
Unacceptable – A result that is not satisfactory or allowable.
Errors and deviations are incorporated in the 4-Point Marking Scale.
(1) The following two pages contain the 4-Point Marking Scale (Grading Matrix).
4-Point Marking Scale (Grading Matrix) - Page 1 of 2 | |||||
4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | ||
Technical Proficiencies | |||||
poor. | |||||
Knowledge and | Slight Error | Minor Error | Major Error | Critical Error / UAS | |
Technical Skills | |||||
Automation | Subject to marking under Knowledge and Technical Skills (above). This element may also be discussed during a Flight Check debrief based on information found in Advisory Circular (AC) 700-042 and the air operator’s own CRM training program. | ||||
Slight Deviation | Minor Deviation | Major Deviation | Critical Deviation | ||
Aircraft Handling (PF) | poor. | ||||
- OR - | |||||
tolerance. | |||||
Illustration of Aircraft Handling (Deviation) Assessments Aircraft Handling is initially assessed based on assigned parameters (e.g., maintain 12,000 feet) versus tolerances (e.g., ± 100 feet) and quality of handling (e.g., smoothness, coordination and appropriateness of control inputs throughout all levels of automation). Illustrated here are two possible deviations where an ACP might determine an initial grade of two (2). Any initial technical assessment grade could be subject to further ACP discretion based on environmental conditions and/or demonstrations of TEM. |
| ||||
Practical knowledge was effective.
Practical knowledge was acceptable.
Practical knowledge was poor.
Practical knowledge was unacceptable.
Following of SOPs, rules and regulations was effective.
Following of SOPs, rules or regulations was acceptable.
Following of SOPs, rules or regulations was
Following of SOPs, rules or regulations was unacceptable.
Flight crew actions resulted in an aircraft position, speed, attitude and configuration that maintained effective safety margins.
Flight crew actions or inactions resulted in an aircraft position, speed, attitude or configuration that maintained acceptable safety margins.
Flight crew actions or inactions resulted in an aircraft position, speed, attitude or configuration that maintained poor (i.e., reduced) safety margins.
Flight crew actions or inactions resulted in an aircraft position, speed, attitude or configuration that maintained unacceptable (i.e., clearly reduced) safety margins.
Effective compliance with regulations and aircraft limitations.
Acceptable compliance with regulations and aircraft limitations.
Poor compliance with regulations and/or aircraft limitations.
Unacceptable compliance with regulations and/or aircraft limitations.
A variation in precision that was less than or equal to a flight test exercise tolerance and quality of aircraft handling was effective.
A variation in precision that was less than or equal to a flight test exercise tolerance or quality of aircraft handling was acceptable.
A variation in precision that exceeded but was not more than double a flight test exercise tolerance or quality of aircraft handling was
A variation in precision that exceeded but was not more than double a flight test exercise tolerance or quality of aircraft handling was unacceptable.
A variation in precision that was more than double a flight test exercise
4-Point Marking Scale (Grading Matrix) – Page 2 of 2 | |||||
4 | 3 | 2 | [2] | ||
Non-Technical Proficiencies | Situational Awareness | ||||
Cooperation | |||||
Decision- Making | |||||
Leadership and Managerial Skills | |||||
Pressure and Stress | Not subject to marking. These non-technical elements may be discussed during a Flight Check debrief based on information found in Advisory Circular (AC) 700-042 and the air operator’s own CRM training program. | ||||
Fatigue | |||||
Communication | |||||
Workload Management | Subject to marking under Leadership and Managerial Skills (above). This element may also be discussed during a Flight Check debrief based on information found in Advisory Circular (AC) 700-042 and the air operator’s own CRM training program. | ||||
Threat and Error Management (TEM) | Not subject to marking as a standalone item- TEM performance may be considered by an ACP where marking discretion is available. TEM performance may also be discussed during a Flight Check debrief based on information found in Advisory Circular (AC) 700-042 and the air operator’s own CRM training. | ||||
Effective system awareness
Effective environmental awareness
Effective awareness of time
Effective anticipation of future events
Acceptable system awareness
Acceptable environmental awareness
Acceptable awareness of time
Acceptable anticipation of future events
Poor system awareness
Poor environmental awareness
Poor awareness of time
Poor anticipation of future events
Unacceptable system awareness
Unacceptable environmental awareness
Unacceptable awareness of time
Unacceptable anticipation of future events
Effective team building and maintaining
Effective consideration of others
Effective support of others
Effective resolving conflicts
Acceptable team building and maintaining
Acceptable consideration of others
Acceptable support of others
Acceptable resolving conflicts
Poor team building and maintaining
Poor consideration of others
Poor support of others
Poor resolving conflicts
Unacceptable team building and maintaining
Unacceptable consideration of others
Unacceptable support of others
Poor resolving conflicts
Effective problem definition / diagnosis
Effective option generation
Effective risk assessment & option selection
Effective outcome review
Acceptable problem definition / diagnosis
Acceptable option generation
Acceptable risk assessment & option selection
Acceptable outcome review
Poor problem definition / diagnosis
Poor option generation
Poor risk assessment & option selection
Poor outcome review
Unacceptable problem definition / diagnosis
Unacceptable option generation
Unacceptable risk assessment & option selection
Unacceptable outcome review
Effective use of authority and assertiveness (PIC)
Effective providing and maintaining standards
Effective planning and coordination
Effective workload management
Acceptable use of authority and assertiveness (PIC)
Acceptable providing and maintaining standards
Acceptable planning and coordination
Acceptable workload management
Poor use of authority and assertiveness (PIC)
Poor providing and maintaining standards
Poor planning and coordination
Poor workload management
Unacceptable use of authority and assertiveness (PIC)
Unacceptable providing and maintaining standards
Unacceptable planning and coordination
Unacceptable workload management
When assessing technical proficiency elements (i.e., technical skills and knowledge, and aircraft handling), ACPs must refer to the 4-Point Marking Scale.
Flight test exercise information contained in the Pilot Proficiency Check and Aircraft Type Rating
– Flight Test Guide and other pertinent documentation such as regulations, AFMs/HFMs, SOPs, MMELs etc. must be used.
Ground Assessments of Technical Knowledge and Flight Planning
ACPs are expected to exercise discretion and judgment in assessing both technical knowledge and flight planning.
With respect to critical information (e.g., checklist memory items and take-off performance calculations), ACPs may assess the level of technical knowledge and/or flight planning as unacceptable (i.e., a grade of one (1)) if there is a related safety concern.
Refer to information on ACP discretion below.
When assessing non-technical proficiency elements, ACPs must refer to the 4-Point Marking Scale.
Assessing non-technical proficiency elements is more challenging as these assessments must be based on observable behaviour within each flight test exercise. These assessments (by nature) are qualitative.
Non-Technical Proficiency Element Objectivity
To help ensure objectivity of a non-technical assessment, observable behaviours related to a specific non-technical sub-element must be seen more than once.
Minimum Non-Technical Proficiency Element Grade
The minimum flight test exercise grade, based on a non-technical proficiency element, is two (2).
Examples of behaviours that can be directly observed or inferred by crew interaction are as follows:
Active monitoring of weather, aircraft systems, instruments and ATS communications;
Sharing of relevant information;
Statement and acknowledgement of goals and plans;
Proper communication and acknowledgement with respect to workload distribution;
Prioritization of secondary operational tasks;
Recognition of situations leading to task saturation;
Proper planning of time and space with respect to aircraft maneuvering or the completion of procedures;
Recognition and acknowledgement of aircraft status and mode changes;
Use of recommended terminology as per SOPs with no or limited chatter; and
Recognition and avoidance of potential distractions caused by automation or crew workload.
There are two instances where an ACP may exercise discretion regarding technical proficiency element grades.
Environmental Conditions
It is important for an ACP to apply discretion for unusual circumstances outside the control of the candidate such as the weather, turbulence, traffic, wind, or an initial emergency situation.
In these cases, the assessed mark should reflect the candidate’s expected proficiency in more normal circumstances.
Demonstrations of Threat and Error Management
Where actions are observed that indicate a positive application of Threat and Error Management (TEM) principles, ACPs may exercise reasonable discretion to increase an initially assessed score by one increment.
This discretion allows for the following:
a three (3) to become a four (4); or
a two (2) to become a three (3); or
a one (1) to become a two (2).
Marking flight test exercises can be challenging given the observation environment (i.e., aircraft cockpit) and because ACPs are sometimes required to simulate ATC and/or other crew/ support positions.
Recommended Grading Methodology
Grading can be challenging in a dynamic cockpit environment. The following methodology is recommended for accuracy and efficiency.
Sufficient Observations | Ensure sufficient observations have been acquired to make a valid assessment. |
Regulatory & Aircraft Limitations | Assess whether regulatory and aircraft limitations have been complied with. Due to the objectivity of this grading sub- element, grades awarded are often a four (4) or a one (1). |
Weakest Sub-element | Identify which technical or non-technical skill sub-element(s) best describes a pilot’s weakest proficiency on that particular flight test exercise. |
ACP Discretion | Apply ACP discretion (as appropriate) with respect to technical skill sub-elements based on environmental conditions and/or demonstrations of threat and error management (TEM). |
Record | Record the appropriate grade. |
Minimum Grades Awarded
The minimum flight test exercise grade that may be assessed, based on a technical proficiency element, is one (1).
The minimum flight test exercise grade that may be assessed, based on a non-technical
proficiency element, is two (2).
Over time traditional human factors programs like CRM have evolved to include new areas of interest (e.g., communications) and different approaches to human error management (e.g., threat and error management (TEM)). Most recently, developments in Competency Based Training and Assessments (CBTA) have advanced work previously accomplished in the areas of CRM and contemporary CRM.
To reflect this work, additional technical and non-technical competencies are now referenced in the 4-Point Marking Scale (Grading Matrix). These additional competencies are provided for observation and discussion purposes only, not formal assessment at this time:
Additional Technical Competencies
Automation;
Additional Non-Technical Competencies
Pressure and Stress;
Fatigue;
Communication;
Workload Management; and
Threat and Error Management.
It is important that ACPs be familiar with these additional competencies which are drawn from Advisory Circular (AC) 700-042 to facilitate observations and discussions during debrief.
Automation is becoming more prevalent and relied upon in aviation. In the cockpit, automation generally refers to autopilots, flight director guidance, flight management systems (FMS) and integrated flight information systems. Outside the cockpit, automation is incorporated into activities such as scheduling, flight planning and maintenance.
For more information, consult Advisory Circular (AC) 700-042 and the air operator’s own CRM training program.
Research shows that crew members are often unfamiliar with the negative (and cumulative) effects of pressure and stress on individual cognitive functions and team performance.
For more information, consult Advisory Circular (AC) 700-042 and the air operator’s own CRM training program.
Fatigue management has been the focus of recent Transport Canada regulatory amendments. Recognizing symptoms of fatigue (immediate and long term) are critical for a safe flying operation.
For more information, consult Advisory Circular (AC) 700-042 and the air operator’s own CRM training program.
Communication is the process of exchanging ideas through a common system of verbal and non- verbal signals. Effective communication ensures that the other person has understood what has been said and not just received it.
For more information, consult Advisory Circular (AC) 700-042 and the air operator’s own CRM training program.
Workload management involves proper allocation of tasks to individuals, avoidance of work overload in self and others, prioritization of tasks during periods of high workloads and preventing nonessential factors from distracting attention from adherence to SOPs particularly in the case of critical tasks.
For more information, consult Advisory Circular (AC) 700-042 and the air operator’s own CRM training program.
While not yet formally assessed using the 4-Point Marking Scale, ACPs are expected be knowledgeable, observant and skilled at using TEM to assist with ACP grading discretion and in facilitating discussions on TEM during a debrief.
While information on TEM is provided in Advisory Circular (AC) 700-042 and an air operator’s own CRM training program, further information is provided here owing to the importance of TEM on ACP’s discretion regarding final grading scores.
General
In its simplest form, TEM is defensive flying. TEM equips a pilot with skills and behaviour to recognize and avoid problems which if ignored or left unattended could result in an undesired aircraft state (UAS) and possibly lead to an incident or accident.
TEM proposes that threats, errors and even undesired aircraft states (such as an altitude deviation) are everyday occurrences that pilots must manage to maintain safety.
Threat Management
A threat is an event, condition or error that:
occurs outside the influence of the crew;
increases the operational complexity of the flight; and
requires crew attention and management if safety margins are to be maintained.
Threat management is how flight crews anticipate and respond to threats. Flight crews can manage threats and prevent errors by (for example) reading weather advisories, conducting thorough pre-flight inspections, planning alternate routes or carrying extra fuel if weather is poor.
Error Management
An error within the context of threat and error management is a flight crew action or omission that:
leads to a deviation from crew or organizational intentions or expectations;
reduces safety margins; and
increases the probability of an adverse operational event occurring.
An error that is not detected cannot be managed. An error that is detected and effectively managed should have no adverse impact on the flight. Alternatively, a mismanaged error reduces safety margins by creating or inducing additional errors which could lead to an undesired aircraft state.
Threat and Error Management (TEM) Techniques and Tools
TEM stresses three basic concepts:
anticipation;
recognition; and
recovery.
The key to anticipation is accepting that while something is likely to go wrong, knowing exactly when that might happen is unknown. Efforts to remain vigilant to recognizing potential threats and errors are assisted by skillful use of hard and soft safeguards.
Hard Safeguards
Modern automated aircraft can offer tremendous assistance in anticipating and recognizing threats and errors. Examples of systems that assist pilots by providing chimes, alerts and warnings include autopilots, flight management systems (FMS), traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) and enhance ground proximity warning system (EGPWS).
Automated systems such as these provide hard safeguards. While beneficial, these systems alone are not sufficient to ensure effective threat and error performance at all times.
Soft Safeguards
Pilots maintain skills in accordance with various qualification and currency requirements governed by regulations and routinely use SOPs and checklists.
Soft safeguards represent behaviour that demonstrates that pilots remain ahead of the aircraft and are a direct reflection of successful situational awareness.
With the assistance of hard and soft safeguards, anticipation builds vigilance and recognition leads to recovery.
When an error contributes to an undesired aircraft state, recovering to adequate safety margins is the first course of action. The flight crew must recover first and analyze causes later.
Threat and Error Management Link to CRM
Many of the best practices advocated by CRM can be considered threat and error management countermeasures.
Some threat and error management countermeasures are outlined below:
planning countermeasures - planning, preparation, briefings, contingency management - are essential for managing anticipated and unexpected threats;
execution countermeasures - monitor/cross-check, taxiway/runway management, workload and automation management - are essential for error detection and error response;
review/modify countermeasures - evaluation of plans, inquiry - are essential for managing the changing conditions of a flight, such as undesired aircraft states; and
flight crews that exhibit strong cooperation skills, leadership and managerial skills, situational awareness and effective decision-making skills are typically observed to encounter fewer mismanaged errors and undesired aircraft states.
ACP’s Role as a Threat and Error Management (TEM) Observer
The role of the ACP is evolving from simply detecting mistakes during Flight Checks.
ACPs should observe how the candidate(s) do the following:
anticipate and recognize threats (such as poor weather, aircraft unserviceabilities, challenging ATC clearances, terrain features, demanding instrument approaches, aircraft systems management, etc.);
use effective strategies to manage these threats (such as airmanship, technical skills and knowledge, aircraft handling, thorough use of SOPs, situational awareness, verbal communication, use of all available resources, etc.);
minimize errors by using SOPs and promoting effective teamwork; and
recognize and correct errors when they occur (by maintaining situational awareness, decision making, using effective communication techniques, responding to onboard alerting systems, requesting/obtaining assistance of additional resources, when necessary, etc.).
When an error and/or deviation is observed, the ACP should make note of it and (time permitting) observe the candidate’s corrective actions. These observations should be incorporated into the Flight Check assessment and debrief where possible.
Summary
if threats are adequately managed, they become inconsequential;
if threats are mismanaged, they can lead to errors;
if errors are adequately trapped and managed, they become inconsequential;
if errors are mismanaged, they can lead to undesired aircraft states;
if undesired aircraft states are mitigated, they can lead to recovery; and
if undesired aircraft states are mismanaged, they can lead to an adverse operational occurrence and potentially an incident or accident.
A Flight Check represents a “snapshot” of a candidate’s proficiency as well as an indirect validation of an operator’s training program and documentation (e.g., SOPs).
Flight Checks conducted under Part VII of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) consist of Pilot Proficiency Checks (PPCs) and Line Checks. Line Checks are applicable to CARs Part VII, Subpart 705 only.
Aim of a PPC
The aim of a PPC is to determine that a candidate meets the requirements to operate an aircraft, its systems and components under normal, abnormal and emergency conditions in a safe and competent manner.
The aim of a PPC is also to improve standards of instruction and training through feedback to the operator or training organization of those flight test exercises, policies and/or procedures (i.e., SOPs) that are out of date, weak or commonly unsuccessful.
Aim of a Line Check
The aim of a Line Check is to determine that a candidate meets the requirements to operate an aircraft, its systems and components during normal line operations in a safe and competent manner.
The aim of a Line Check is also to improve aspects of safety and the effectiveness of company policies and procedures that impact line operations. These include operational control measures, aircraft loading, fueling, de-icing, air traffic control interactions and cabin/ground crew interactions.
PPCs are conducted in accordance with CARs Part VII Commercial Air Service Standards
(CASS). ACPs must specifically consult the following:
Flight crew member qualification regulations and associated standards from the CARs;
PPC Schedules detailed in the CARs Part VII Commercial Air Service Standards (CASS) (e.g., section 724.108 of the CASS, HELICOPTER SCHEDULE – Pilot Proficiency Check);
Special Authorizations/Specific Approvals;
Transport Canada (aircraft specific) Operational Evaluation Board (OEB) reports (or, if necessary, a foreign equivalent); and
Pilot Proficiency Check and Aircraft Type Rating - Flight Test Guide (Aeroplane) (TP14727); or
Pilot Proficiency Check and Aircraft Type Rating - Flight Test Guide (Helicopter) (TP14728)
of Flight Checking information. The use of foreign OEB reports is done in accordance with the following hierarchy:
TC OEB report, if available;
OEB report from the country of manufacture of the aircraft, if available; otherwise
OEB report from the country with the most similarities with the Canadian framework.
The CARs Part VII Commercial Air Service Standard (CASS) – PPC Schedules define the flight test exercises that are applicable to PPCs. Flight test exercise information is found in the applicable Pilot Proficiency Check and Aircraft Type Rating - Flight Test Guide.
There are various PPC schedules for aeroplanes and helicopters under Part VII of the CARs. These are cross referenced in the following table.
CARs Part VII CASS | Title | Schedule | Platform |
722 | Aerial Work | Schedule I | Aeroplane |
722 | Aerial Work | Schedule II | Helicopter |
723 | Air Taxi | Schedule I | Aeroplane |
723 | Air Taxi | Schedule | Helicopter |
724 | Commuter Operations | Schedule I | Simulator |
724 | Commuter Operations | Schedule II | Aeroplane |
724 | Commuter Operations | Schedule | Helicopter |
725 | Airline Operations | Schedule I | Simulator |
725 | Airline Operations | Schedule II | Aeroplane |
725 | Airline Operations | Schedule III | Cruise Relief Pilot |
(1) Important guidance and information on the new Phased PPC for CARs Subparts 702-704 air operators is found in Advisory Circular (AC) 700-062.
Line Checks are conducted in accordance with Paragraph 705.106(3)(a) of the CARs. ACPs must also consult Advisory Circular (AC) No. 705-003.
Line Checks are normally conducted during revenue flight operations.
Although a Line Check is less formal than a PPC, the ACP must maintain the same level of professionalism expected during a PPC.
Where an air operator makes use of both ACPs and non-ACPs (i.e., company line check pilots) to satisfy Line Check requirements, use of the 4-Point Marking Scale and associated methodologies is recommended for consistency.
Some operators operate the same aircraft with both multi-crew and single crew assignments. Under these conditions, operators will have a special authorization/specific approval to operate with “minimum crew without a second-in-command”. Operating requirements are outlined in Section 703.86 of the CARs and the associated CARs Part VII Commercial Air Service Standard (CASS).
Pilots required to operate under these conditions must demonstrate both single-pilot and multi- crew proficiencies during a single PPC. During the multi-crew portion of a PPC, a full multi-crew PPC must be completed in accordance with the appropriate CARs Part VII Commercial Air Service Standard (CASS) - PPC Schedule. For the single-pilot portion of the PPC, these pilots will (as a minimum) carry out the following additional flight test exercises without assistance from the other crew member:
Single-Pilot IFR
a normal take off in accordance with the AFM/HFM establishing simulated IFR at or before reaching 200 feet above airport elevation;
for multi-engine aircraft, a simulated engine failure after take-off, in accordance with the CARs Part VII Commercial Air Service Standard (CASS) - PPC Schedule;
one instrument approach performed in accordance with procedures and limits published in the CAP or in an equivalent foreign publication; and
for multi-engine aircraft, one landing and manoeuvring to that landing with a simulated failure of 50 percent of available engines.
Single-Pilot VFR
a normal take off in accordance with the AFM/HFM;
a simulated engine failure after take-off, as per the CARs Part VII Commercial Air Service Standard (CASS) - PPC Schedule;
one malfunction performed in accordance with the AFM/HFM; and
one landing and manoeuvring to that landing with a simulated engine failure.
The ACP may ask the candidate to demonstrate any other flight test exercise listed in the CARs Part VII Commercial Air Service Standard (CASS) - PPC Schedule not requiring a multi-crew assignment.
PPCs that combine both single-pilot and multi-crew proficiency assessments will have one of three possible outcomes: successful, unsuccessful or incomplete.
Assessments Under Another Regulatory Authority
A Canadian PPC has different regulatory requirements than proficiency checks administered and delivered under different national authorities (e.g., FAA, CAA, etc.). A Canadian PPC will be conducted as a standalone event and not be combined with any other foreign proficiency check or assessment.
Assessments Under Transport Canada
A PPC may be combined with another Canadian assessment (e.g., Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC)) provided all elements of each assessment are covered.
Assessments Using Different Air Operator SOPs
Where two candidates are paired from different air operators that use different SOPs, PPCs must be treated as single candidate PPCs with the support of a seat substitute.
Simulator Requirements
Flight simulation training devices (FSTD) are evaluated and certified by Transport Canada’s National Simulator Evaluation Program (NSEP). The following website provides information on certification requirements and currently approved FSTDs:
http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/CAS-SAC/aasftddevsaas.aspx?lang=eng
The Aeroplane and Rotorcraft Simulator Manual (TP9685) contains detailed information regarding certification requirements.
A simulator used for a PPC must satisfy the following:
Certification - Certified in accordance with Section 606.03 of the CARs – Synthetic Flight Training Equipment and the Aeroplane and Rotorcraft Simulator Manual (TP9685) for the flight rules applicable to the PPC (VFR and/or IFR).
CASS Requirements - Meet applicable requirements stated in the appropriate CASS;
IFR Approaches – As applicable, contain sufficient precision and non-precision approaches (including RNP approaches) on the simulator’s qualification certificate issued by Transport Canada to satisfy PPC requirements.
Circling Approaches - As applicable, contain a circling approach on the simulator’s qualification certificate issued by Transport Canada to satisfy PPC requirements; and
Visual Scenes - The use of generic scenes is not permitted. Only the use of qualification scenes and approved custom scenes is permitted as documented on simulator’s qualification certificate issued by Transport Canada.
Weather Simulation
Simulated weather conditions for the required approaches should be set at or close to the minimum weather criteria specified on the applicable approach charts. For circling approaches, no lower than 50 feet above minimums is appropriate and consistent with the Aeroplane and Rotorcraft Simulator Manual (TP 9685).
Communications
The simulator equipment must have suitable two-way intercom voice communication that permits clear communication with the ACP. The intercom system should be used during the Flight Check.
ATC Role Playing
While role playing ATC, ACPs must provide realism in their communications. This includes distractive communications on occasion. Actions and events within the cockpit must be assumed to be unknown unless communicated by way of a radio transmission.
ACPs must:
provide clear and unambiguous clearances and instructions using standard ATC phraseology;
deliver ATC assistance that would normally be available; and
avoid unrealistic ATC assistance specifically intended to prevent crew errors.
ACPs may wish to consult one of several Phraseology Guides provided by NAV Canada on VFR, IFR, ground traffic and RNAV clearances.
Device Operation
The person operating the flight simulation training device shall have sufficient training and experience on the equipment and have the qualifications, required by the device certificate holder, to ensure execution of the Flight Check in accordance with the profile or sequencing of events specified by the ACP.
Another qualified person will operate the equipment where the ACP does not possess the sufficient training and experience or necessary (device certificate holder) qualification or does not wish to operate the device during the Flight Check;
The device operator, if other than the ACP, must have been briefed prior to the Flight Check on the flight profile, sequencing of events and the clearances to be delivered. Having the assistance of a device operator does not relieve the ACP of his/her responsibilities to ensure the plan is adhered to. The ACP must maintain a constant vigilance over the device operator.
Repositioning and Position Freeze
To promote realism, ACPs must conduct PPCs in real time as much as possible. The use of position freeze and repositioning are to be used sparingly according to the ACP’s best judgment.
Before releasing a simulator after a reposition or position freeze, ACPs must confirm that both the simulator and candidates are ready to resume the check. This will often require an ACP to prompt aircraft reconfigurations (e.g., selecting gear and flap positions) and FMS programming actions (e.g., resending FMS derived speeds). ACPs must also ensure that candidates have acquired the appropriate situational awareness.
Available documentation
Approved documents, such as aircraft operating manuals and minimum equipment lists, etc., must be made available to the Flight Check candidate(s) should the need to refer to them arise during the course of the check.
Candidate Seat Assignment
The candidate will occupy the pilot seat associated with the candidate’s respective duty position. Where an air operator has not designated a specific seat assignment for the respective duty positions (i.e., a PIC or SIC may occupy either the left or right seat), the PPC candidate may occupy either seat.
ACP Seat Assignment
ACPs will not participate as a crewmember during PPCs conducted in the simulator. They will occupy an observer’s seat.
Simulators must have an approved seat (suitable for observing the flight crew) secured to the floor and fitted with positive restraint devices for each observer. The seat must safely restrain the occupant during any known or predicted motion system excursion.
Simulator Unserviceabilities
If the simulator has recorded unserviceabilities or defects, the ACP will refer to the Transport Canada approved Simulator Component Inoperative Guide (SCIG) associated with that device to determine whether a PPC may proceed.
On simulators approved by the FAA, unserviceabilities documented on the Missing, Malfunction or Inoperative (MMI) list is available to help determine whether a PPC may proceed.
Regardless of information documented on either the SCIG (Transport Canada) or the MMI (FAA), ACPs must be satisfied that simulator unserviceability will not impede the ability of the candidate to demonstrate their proficiency.
Simulated System Failures
System failures must be practical and reasonable. Multiple failures must be related and only cascade as a result of an initial failure (i.e., an engine-driven hydraulic pump fails as a result of an engine’s failure) or as a result of a candidate’s actions. Multiple unrelated failures (i.e., compound failures) must not be provided.
A simulated system failure which has been assessed and deferred prior to dispatch, and has no impact on the flight characteristics of the aircraft, may be present throughout the PPC, whole or in part, and is deemed to be unrelated to subsequent simulated system failures (e.g., dispatch with one flight management guidance computer (FMGC) unserviceable followed by the inflight failure of a second FMGC).
Flight Check Data (Screen Printout)
A plotting device (i.e., screen printout) is often beneficial when a flight test exercise is not performed successfully. If captured and available, this data should be presented to the candidate during a Flight Check debrief and retained by the ACP.
It is a suggested practice (though not mandatory) to retain and reference a copy of this printout in the General Comments section of the Transport Canada Online PPC Flight Test Report (previously forms 26-0249/26-0279). This information could be useful should an appeal to the Transportation Appeals Tribunal of Canada (TATC) be submitted.
Under certain conditions, both PPCs and Line Checks may be conducted in an aircraft. While Line Checks may be conducted during a revenue event, PPCs may not.
Safety
Safety must be prioritized during Flight Checks conducted in aircraft. The decision to commence a Flight Check in an aircraft is at the discretion of the ACP who must determine that:
weather conditions are sufficient to avoid hazardous operation of the aircraft during a Flight Check;
the aircraft is airworthy; and
the candidate’s documents, as required by the CARs are valid.
If not participating as a flying crewmember (e.g., occupying a jump seat instead), ACPs are not passengers. ACPs will remain alert for potential hazards at all times and have a duty of care to intervene appropriately to maintain the safety of the flight. ACPs will also intervene appropriately to avoid potentially non-hazardous violations.
Aircraft Requirements
Except as otherwise noted, aircraft used for Flight Checks will satisfy the following:
Certified in accordance with the airworthiness regulations and by the manufacture to operate under the flight rules applicable to the Flight Check (VFR and/or IFR). All aircraft equipment and instruments applicable to the certifications must be approved, installed and in an operable condition;
If the Flight Check includes the issuance of an Initial Instrument Rating or is conducted for the purposes of an Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC), the aircraft must also satisfy the aircraft and equipment requirements stated in the applicable Flight Test Guide – Instrument Rating (TP9939 or TP15099) or Advisory Circular 401-004 Conduct of IPCs, as applicable; and
Aircraft must be flown in accordance with the requirements of Section 602.07 of the CARs – Aircraft Operating Limitations and operated within the approved flight operating limitations (Day/Night/VFR/IFR), airframe limitations, and engine limitations set out in the approved POH/AFM/RFM or approved POH/AFM/RFM supplements.
Flight Controls
All aircraft used for Flight Checks must be equipped with fully functioning dual control and provide a satisfactory and appropriate means of audio and verbal communication.
Weather Requirements (PPC Only)
Actual and/or forecast weather conditions must be sufficient to safely accommodate all planned flight test exercises.
Candidate Seat Assignment
For the pilot flying (PF) portion of their PPC, the candidate will sit in the seat normally occupied for the respective duty position (i.e., PIC versus SIC), if specific seat assignments are applicable for the aircraft / operator SOPs.
ACP Seat Assignment
PPC
In an aircraft certified for single-pilot operation, the ACP will occupy the second- in-command seat except where the operator has indicated in its operations manual (OM) that all flights will require a two-person crew.
In an aircraft certified for operations with a minimum flight crew of two, the ACP will occupy the jump seat.
When the aircraft type certificate or an operator’s OM requires two pilots and the aircraft is not equipped with a jump seat, the ACP may occupy a passenger seat nearest to the cockpit for the landing and take-off. Thereafter, safety permitting, the ACP may position them self between the two pilot seats to observe the check. If this is not practical the ACP may occupy a pilot position and act as the safety pilot.
Line Check
ACPs conducting Line Checks will occupy either a crew position or jump seat.
When conducting a Line Check from one of the crew positions, the ACP will carry out the duties of that position to the best of their abilities. No errors will be purposely introduced.
A safety pilot is not required during a Line Check.
Safety Pilot
For safety of flight and legal purposes, a safety pilot must be designated and occupy one of the pilot seats during a PPC. An operator will normally designate a safety pilot acceptable to the ACP.
Prior to flight, the safety pilot must be briefed by the ACP on their role and duties. These will include:
safe checking practices which specify:
transfer of aircraft control;
touch-and-go procedures;
procedures for simulating an inoperative engine;
simulated abnormal and emergency procedures;
response to an actual emergency; and
any other element that is particular to the aircraft type.
the potential need for physical intervention; and
supporting crewmember duties;
ACPs occupying safety pilot positions must be:
type rated;
current on the aircraft;
trained and competent with respect to company operations; and
trained and competent to act as a company training pilot.
PPCs may be conducted in both a simulator and an aircraft. In this manual, the aircraft portion is referred to as the airborne PPC.
Flight test exercises completed in the simulator or aircraft will be specified and will depend on, for example, the simulator’s level of approval and fidelity, the approved training program and the status of the candidate.
The operator is responsible to coordinate and make this information available.
Qualifications
A training organization or operator will ensure that the individual assigned as a seat substitute during the PPC is qualified, current on type and is competent in their supporting role.
A PPC seat substitute must possess sufficient knowledge of an operator’s SOPs, checklist procedures and any applicable Special Authorizations/Specific Approvals. Additionally, a seat substitute must have sufficient knowledge of all documents listed in section 6.2(1) of this manual.
A valid PPC and medical (or foreign equivalent) on the aircraft type are normally required. Where a seat substitute is providing assistance in a FSTD environment, PPC and medical requirements may be satisfied in a manner similar to ACP (Simulator-Only) delegates found in this manual or Training Pilots (Synthetic Training Device) established in the CASS.
Jeopardy Exposure
An individual filling in as a seat substitute during a multi-crew PPC is not a PPC candidate in as much as this individual has not completed the requirements of an approved training program and not been issued a recommendation for the purposes of being evaluated during a PPC. This individual merely fills in and occupies an aircraft duty position for the sole purpose of providing competent support to the candidate being evaluated during that PPC.
A seat substitute will not receive any credit for providing good support during a multi-crew PPC; likewise, this person’s PPC privileges cannot be considered at risk of administrative action when failing to provide the appropriate level of support expected during a PPC.
In accordance with the above, no licensing or administrative actions will be taken by a Transport Canada Issuing Authority towards a person acting as a seat substitute, when that person fails to provide the appropriate level of support expected during a multi-crew PPC.
Poor Performance by a Seat Substitute
If the ACP feels that the seat substitute’s performance is adversely affecting crew performance, a replacement must be found.
Because poor performance by a seat substitute may translate into a safety concern, an ACP must act with diligence and ensure that the operator or training center which assigned the seat substitute is made aware of that person’s poor performance.
An ACP has the discretion to assess the Flight Check incomplete rather than an unsuccessful attempt if the ACP determines that the seat substitute was the sole contributor to the crew’s unsuccessful performance. In this case, feedback must be
provided in writing to the operator and/or training provider. The Transport Canada Issuing Authority must be notified.
It is imperative during a PPC that a normal operational crew setting is provided. A pilot-in- command (or upgrade candidate) must normally occupy the pilot-in-command duty position and a second-in-command (or candidate) must normally occupy the second-in-command duty position.
Non-Standard Operational Crew Setting
Situations occur in the simulator where two second-in-command PPC candidates or two pilot-in-command PPC candidates are paired together during a simulator event. This is acceptable as follows:
Two Pilot-In-Command Pilots
In the case of two pilot-in-command pilots (or candidates), the individual playing the role of second-in-command is fully familiar with the tasks associated with the second-in-command duty position.
Two Second-In-Command Pilots
In the case of two second-in-command PPC pilots (or candidates), these individuals are paired (in this manner) during training (initial or recurrent) and become fully familiar with the tasks associated with the pilot-in- command duty position.
Generally speaking, a team either succeeds or fails together.
Where two candidates are being assessed in a normal operational crew setting (i.e., a pilot-in- command paired with a second-in-command), both candidates are equally subject to flight crew jeopardy during both assessments.
Exceptions to Flight Crew Jeopardy
Pilot Flying (PF) Induced Mistakes
Pilot flying (PF) induced mistakes where it would be unreasonable to expect the pilot monitoring (PM) to have the opportunity to take control or take action to manage the error.
PF induced mistakes where PM’s support has been appropriate will also be assigned to the PF rather than both candidates.
An example of this includes a loss of control during an engine failure during take- off (aeroplane) or a tail rotor strike upon landing (helicopter) where all PM actions and calls have been appropriate.
Seat Substitute
If a seat substitute has been assigned to support a PPC, flight crew jeopardy will not apply to that individual.
Non-Standard Seat and/or Duty Position
Pilot Flying (PF) Performance
A candidate that is assigned a non-standard seat and/or duty position (during a PPC) that will not be subsequently operationally assigned, is not subject to jeopardy regarding PF performance.
Pilot Monitoring (PM) Performance
While a candidate’s seat and duty position should be consistent with subsequent operational assignments, a candidate that is assigned a non- standard seat and/or duty position (during a PPC) is subject to jeopardy regarding PM performance.
In general, a flight test exercise is performed once and assessed once. The following table outlines circumstances where a flight test exercise may be repeated and reassessed.
In all cases, the ACP will determine if circumstances warrant a flight test exercise being repeated.
Authorized Circumstance | Environment | Notes |
Safety Concern | Aircraft | A safety concern may be raised by the ACP, candidate, or another flight crew member that could preclude the performance and assessment of a Flight Check item. |
ATC Instruction | Aircraft | ATC instructions may, on occasion, not facilitate the accomplishment of a Flight Check item. Examples include VFR restrictions issued by ATC when simulating IFR flight profiles. |
Misunderstood Request | Simulator or Aircraft | There are legitimate instances when candidates do not understand an ACP’s request to perform a specific manoeuvre. |
ACP Distraction | Simulator or Aircraft | Any condition whereby the ACP is distracted and the performance of a Flight Check item was not adequately observed. |
Simulator or Aircraft Malfunction | Simulator or Aircraft | Any condition whereby the performance of a Flight Check item was not adequately observed due to a simulator or aircraft malfunction. |
Performance Mistake | Simulator or Aircraft | ACPs may allow a candidate to repeat a maximum of one unsuccessful flight test exercise subject to all of the following: 1. no other sequence is rated a two (2) or a one (1); |
Authorized Circumstance | Environment | Notes |
Application Without commenting on the mistake, the ACP must allow the candidate to finish the Flight Check to ascertain that no other flight test exercises are rated a two (2) or a one (1). Note: During a Line Check, the repeatable exercise should be completed as soon as practicable during the flight or series of flights. If considering the repeat of a flight test exercise, and without specifying what the mistake was, the ACP will ask the candidate to describe their performance on the exercise that was assigned a mark of one (1). If the candidate’s explanation indicates satisfactory knowledge of the flight test exercise and admission of the mistake that occurred, the ACP may offer the candidate the opportunity to repeat the exercise. If it is not possible to repeat the sequence due to time constraints or other reasons, the ACP will apply the original mark of a one (1). Administrative Follow-up If a flight test exercise is repeated, the mark assigned to that flight test exercise will be based on the repeat performance only. The repeated flight test exercise must be indicated on the Transport Canada Online PPC Flight Test Report (previously forms 26-0249/26- 0279). See completion instructions in Chapter 7 for further details. |
the ACP feels that the risk of the individual repeating the mistake is insignificant;
The mistake did not result in a crash (simulator only) or if allowed to continue, would not have resulted in the loss of control of the aircraft (aircraft only);
In the opinion of the ACP, re-training the flight test exercise would not be beneficial; and
Where a regulation was violated, there was no intent to do so.
(1) Whether a Flight Check is conducted in a simulator or aircraft, approach publications and FMS databases must be current. Approach publications must be obtained from reputable sources such as NAV Canada, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or Jeppesen.
(1) Where a Subpart 703 or 704 of the CARs operator has been authorized to incorporate aeroplane grouping for PPCs (renewal only) purposes, the ACP will adhere to the company program and the associated CARs Part VII Commercial Air Service Standard (CASS) (e.g., CARs Part VII CASS, Section 723.88, SCHEDULE II - Grouping for PPC Purposes).
In general, ACPs have more experience conducting Flight Checks than candidates have being checked. A certain level of nervousness will always be present in candidates.
ACPs must conduct themselves in a manner that does not add to the normal stress of a Flight Check but rather creates an environment whereby the candidate’s proficiency can be accurately assessed.
ACPs should make a concerted effort to be relaxed and non-threatening. ACPs will refrain from making personal remarks and inappropriate motions such as shaking their heads, gasping, laughing at performance or commenting subsequent to a poorly conducted manoeuvre.
Flight Checks may induce tension or feelings of apprehension in even the most experienced pilot. An ACP must create an environment conducive to a true demonstration of the pilot’s ability.
To minimize sources of stress and distraction during a PPC, admittance will be restricted to the following individuals with a bona fide need:
pilot flying (PF);
pilot monitoring (PM);
second officer, flight engineer, and/or cruise relief pilot (CRP) if required by the aircraft type/SOPs;
ACP conducting the PPC;
CASI(s) monitoring the Flight Check;
ACP under training with the approval of either a Transport Canada CASI or ACP and with the concurrence of the candidate(s); and
simulator operator.
There is no legal requirement for an ACP to take notes during or immediately following a Flight Check. ACPs may, however be required to provide oral testimony regarding a Flight Check at the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada (TATC). The elapsed time between a check ride and a TATC hearing could be six months to one year and, in some cases longer. Note taking is therefore recommended.
Studies have shown that the act of recording information in written form tends to impress that information upon one’s memory. Recording information in writing can assist in clarifying and connecting facts in a chronological order. Studies have suggested that when an individual is allowed to reference written notes, approximately 75% of information originally received is recalled. This may represent an increase of 45%-65% in recallable information. Handwritten notes have proven most effective.
The ability of an ACP to recount details of a Flight Check may be scrutinized and challenged by the applicant, their legal representative, and/or the Chair of the TATC. The consequences of not recalling the details or circumstances of a Flight Check may include:
personal embarrassment;
the ACP’s professionalism being challenged;
the value and credibility of an ACP’s testimony being diminished; or
the case being dismissed outright for lack of credible evidence.
The following are important points regarding note taking:
Content
An ACP’s notes should contain facts relevant to the event only. Remarks, comments or expressions of personal opinion must not be documented.
Legible and Understandable
Notes should be legible not only to the ACP but also to anyone else who may have legal access to them. The applicant, their legal representative or TATC member(s) may wish to view an ACP’s notes.
Notes should be understandable by using business-like language, short sentences or fact conveying phrases. Use of reasonable abbreviations is acceptable.
Confidentiality
Notes may contain personal information on an individual or company and must therefore be kept confidential. ACPs should ensure that notes are secure against unauthorized access.
While other programs such as the Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) blend training and checking, Flight Checks (i.e., PPCs and Line Checks) do not incorporate a training element.
During the conduct of a Flight Check, ACPs are prohibited from providing flight training to a candidate. This includes any advice or action that might prompt the candidate towards or away from a specific course of action.
Crew Interactions During Line Checks
Although an ACP is not permitted to provide flight training during a Line Check, normal crew interactions are not only permitted but necessary. This includes what a pilot-in- command might say to a second-in-command regarding a particular flight sequence at an appropriate time.
For Flight Check reliability which includes having sufficient time to consider candidate performance and complete administrative tasks, the maximum allowable PPC events that an ACP can conduct per day is as follows:
four individual PPCs where candidates are paired;
three individual PPC/VFRs where candidates are not paired; or
two individual PPC/IFRs (or one PPC/IFR and one PPC/VFR) where candidates are not paired.
ACPs represent the Minister while conducting Flight Checks. ACPs must not allow business or scheduling pressures to demand an unreasonable effort on their part.
As part of administratively monitoring ACPs, a Transport Canada Issuing Authority will consider an ACP’s Flight Check schedule and may address concerns through discussion, oral counseling and if required, suspension of authorities due to continued unreasonable scheduling habits.
An ACP will not conduct a PPC on a candidate who has received more than 50% of their preceding initial, recurrent or upgrade flight training from that ACP on the aircraft type in which the PPC is being provided.
An ACP must not have been involved in a flight training session (e.g., simulator training session) immediately prior to a PPC on that candidate.
These requirements will be considered and possibly waived by a Transport Canada Issuing Authority upon receiving a substantiated written request from the ACP. If the requirements are waived and the PPC involves the issuance of any rating, a copy of the written waiver must accompany the submission of form 26-0083 (Application for Endorsement of a Rating).
ACPs must be thoroughly familiar with an operator’s documentation. This includes any or all of the following:
aircraft flight manual (AFM) or rotorcraft flight manual (RFM);
company operations manual (COM);
special authorizations/specific approvals;
aircraft checklists; and
standard operating procedures (SOPs).
A PPC will consist of the following Flight Check phases:
Introduction and Administration;
Flight Check Briefing;
Ground Assessment;
Pre-Flight Briefing;
Air Assessment;
Post Flight Debrief;
Flight Check Debrief;
Administration and Conclusion.
Consistent with an operator’s policy, a Line Check will consist of the following Flight Check phases:
Introduction and Administration;
Flight Check Briefing;
Pre-Flight Briefing;
Air Assessment;
Post Flight Debrief;
Flight Check Debrief;
Administration and Conclusion.
In order to create an observable environment, ACPs must create a favourable impression with the candidate(s) by greeting them positively. Eye contact, a pleasant smile and a handshake while introducing oneself is essential. Conversation should initially be general in nature while a rapport is established.
While it is important to progress to the administrative function (e.g., establishing a candidate’s eligibility), moving too quickly or completing administrative paperwork silently can have an adverse effect on the candidate.
One of the first administrative tasks is to establish the candidate’s eligibility and to confirm the purpose and requirement of the Flight Check.
In order to be admitted to a PPC, the ACP must ascertain the candidate’s eligibility. This will include a review of required documentation as well as a generalized assessment of the candidate’s readiness to undertake a PPC.
Photo Identification
The following is acceptable as photo identification:
a valid Aviation Document Booklet (ADB), or
a valid and original government-issued photo identification with signature.
Pilot Licence and Medical Certificate
The following is required:
a valid Aviation Document Booklet (ADB) with a valid category one (1) medical certification meeting the medical standards for the licence;
where an Aviation Document Booklet (ADB) is not available, the candidate will be required to produce a Temporary Licence (Form 26-0265) and a Temporary Medical Certificate (Form 26-0055); or
a valid Foreign Licence Validation Certificate issued in accordance with sections
401.07 of the CARs and 421.07 of the CASS.
class and rating for the intended flight, this restriction does not apply in the context of a PPC conducted in a simulator.
An ACP (Simulator Only) accreditation, and/or
A Training Pilot (Synthetic Training Device) authorization.
Pilot Licence Privileges versus Crewmember Status
In a CARs Part VII commercial air service, the status of the crewmember is linked to the privileges of their licence. This applies to PPCs as well.
An Airline Transport Pilot Licence (ATPL), for example, is required in order to be designated pilot-in-command on an aeroplane if the minimum flight crew document for that aeroplane specifies a minimum flight crew of two pilots. The holder of a Commercial Pilot Licence, in this case, could only be designated second-in-command.
PPCs in Support of an ATPL Application
Holders of a Commercial Pilot Licence who intend to use a PPC in support of an ATPL application may be designated pilot–in-command (PIC) during a PPC with prior Transport Canada Issuing Authority coordination and approval.
Refer to “Requesting ACP Services” in this manual for more information.
Training Files
The ACP must review the candidates training file to ensure there are no obvious omissions. This is done in conjunction with reviewing the PPC recommendation.
PPC Recommendation
A written recommendation must be provided by the chief pilot or delegate certifying that all required ground training, examinations and flight training have been completed in accordance with the company’s approved training program. This procedure also applies to a subsequent Flight Checks following an unsuccessful Flight Check. In such cases, the person who conducted the additional training will sign the letter of recommendation.
Required ground training does not include the following:
company indoctrination training;
surface contamination (seasonal);
dangerous goods;
high altitude indoctrination (HAI);
survival;
aircraft servicing and handling; or
elementary work.
The recommendation must be signed and dated within 30 days prior to the PPC, which is confirming that the last day of flight / simulator training has been completed within the 30 days prior to the PPC.
The written recommendation must be retained in the candidates training file maintained by the air operator.
Alternative Pilot Proficiency Check – Phased Pilot Proficiency Check (PPC)
Refer to Advisory Circular (AC) 700-062 for information on PPC recommendations applicable to Phased PPCs.
Additional Requirements
If temporary privileges for a new type rating, initial instrument rating, ATPL-A or ATPL-H are sought, the appropriate TC application form with associated proof of meeting knowledge and experience requirements (e.g., INRAT, IATRA, HATRA, ATPL-A, ATPL- H, SARON, SAMRA, HARON, HAMRA), including a written recommendation from a qualified person must be completed. It is the responsibility of the ACP to review the applicable sections of the CARs to confirm that the above-mentioned knowledge and experience requirements have been met prior to conducting the PPC.
Upon review, the ACP will return the application to the applicant. The ACP will only formally accept the application upon the successful completion of the PPC and the applicant having met all of the licensing requirements.
In addition to the above, the following requirements must be satisfied to conduct a PPC for the purposes of issuing a type rating to a candidate that is not associated with an air operator under CARs Part VII:
The curriculum and person delivering ground and flight training must be acceptable to the Transport Canada Issuing Authority.
A summary of the proposed PPC (script or plan of action) must be available to the Transport Canada Issuing Authority prior to the PPC; and
The following statement must be written in the comments section of the Flight Test Report: “PPC not valid for operations conducted under CARS Part VII”.
Mental and Physical Readiness
ACPs must be reasonably confident that the candidate is mentally and physically ready to proceed with the Flight Check.
By agreeing to proceed with the Flight Check, the candidate has declared themselves fit.
Unavailable Documentation
Except where company procedures have been established and accepted by a Transport Canada Issuing Authority, a Flight Check will not be conducted if licensing and/or training documents are not presented, not valid, or if the company has failed to provide all relevant training for the candidate as specified in the operator's approved training program.
PPCs Conducted Abroad / Unavailable Training Documentation
Where training documentation is not available due to impracticality, the candidate must provide documentation signed by a Chief Pilot or delegate recommending
the candidate for the PPC and certifying that the relevant training has been completed.
Relevant training includes initial or recurrent training appropriate for the aircraft type and type of operation. This includes ground training, examinations and flight training.
In order to be admitted to a Line Check, the candidate’s eligibility must be considered by the ACP. This will include a review of required documentation as well as a generalized assessment of the candidate’s readiness to undertake a Line Check.
Photo Identification
The following is acceptable as photo identification:
a valid Aviation Document Booklet (ADB), or
a valid and original government-issued photo identification with signature.
Pilot Licence and Medical Certificate
The following is required:
a valid Aviation Document Booklet (ADB) with a valid category one (1) medical certification meeting the medical standards for the licence; or
Where an Aviation Document Booklet (ADB) is not available, the candidate will be required to produce a Temporary Licence (Form 26-0265) and a Temporary Medical Certificate (Form 26-0055).
A valid Foreign Licence Validation Certificate issued in accordance with CARs
401.07 and CASS 421.07.
Training Files (Initial Line Check Only)
A quick review of the candidate’s line indoctrination training file is required. ACPs should look for any obvious omissions. This is done in conjunction with reviewing the Line Check recommendation.
Recommendation (Initial Line Check Only)
A recommendation certifying that all required line indoctrination training has been completed in accordance with the company’s approved training program.
The recommendation must be signed by the training captain who has completed line indoctrination training with the candidate.
The recommendation should be signed and dated within 30 days of a Line Check.
the candidate is still considered competent to successfully complete the Line Check, and
additional training was considered to ascertain competency of the candidate in the Line Check.
Mental and Physical Readiness
ACPs must be reasonably confident that the candidate is mentally and physically ready to proceed with the Line Check.
By agreeing to proceed with the Line Check, the candidate has declared themselves fit.
Unavailable Documentation
Except where company procedures have been established and accepted by a Transport Canada Issuing Authority, a Line Check will not be conducted if licensing and/or training documents (where applicable) are not presented, are not valid, or if the company has failed to provide all relevant training for the candidate as specified in the operator's approved training program.
A Flight Check briefing is mandatory and serves many purposes. Its focus is to discuss the functional aspects of the Flight Check and to put the candidate at ease. It is usually delivered following the introduction and administrative phase and prior to the ground assessment phase of the Flight Check.
Candidates are briefed individually unless paired together as a crew. Seat substitutes are encouraged to join the briefing. Time should be taken during and following the Flight Check briefing to address any questions the candidate may have.
The content and structure of the Flight Check briefing will be dependent on whether the PPC takes place in a simulator or in an aircraft. The ACP may reorganize, combine and/or defer applicable elements to the introduction and administration, or pre-flight briefing phases of the PPC.
The delivery of the Flight Check briefing must establish a cordial and professional relationship with the candidate(s) that facilitates trust, open communications and also places the candidate(s) at ease.
The following briefing elements are mandatory (as applicable).
Purpose
The purpose of the PPC must be stated and agreed upon by the candidate. The following will be determined:
Initial, Renewal or Upgrade PPC.
Although there is no difference in performance standard, the type of PPC should be established and whether the PPC will be used in support of an initial type rating application.
Instrument Rating Requirement
If the PPC is in support of an initial (or converting) instrument rating application (i.e., Group 1, 2, 3, or 4) or if the PPC will be used to support an instrument rating recency requirement.
Crew Duty Position and Seat Assignment
The candidate’s crew duty position (i.e., pilot-in-command (PIC) or second-in- command (SIC) must be established during the briefing.
than one pilot. Therefore, at best, they could only undergo a second-in-command PPC.
Seat assignment (i.e., left seat versus right seat) must also be established.
Special Authorizations/Specific Approvals
Any initial certification of Special Authorization/Specific Approval items that will be required to be performed during the PPC must be established.
Flight Test Exercises
ACPs should indicate to the candidate that flight test exercises are drawn from the applicable CARs Part VII Commercial Air Service Standard (CASS) – PPC Schedule, appropriate Flight Test Guide and any associated Special Authorization/Specific Approval checking requirement.
The ACP should outline the planned sequences as appropriate, while protecting information related to emergency or abnormal events as necessary.
Performance Standard
The aircraft or simulator is to be operated in accordance with aircraft flight manual (AFM), helicopter flight manual (HFM), SOPs and other appropriate documents.
The ACP will verify that the candidate(s) is familiar with the existence and content of the applicable Pilot Proficiency Check and Aircraft Type Rating - Flight Test Guide.
Possible Outcomes
The concept of jeopardy should be mentioned which will result in one of the following attempt outcomes:
successful;
unsuccessful; or
incomplete.
Time Management and Expected Duration
The candidate should be assured that ultimately, the ACP is responsible for the management of time. The candidate should never feel pressured to rush due to schedule constraints, but must respond to any simulated abnormality or emergency with the proper level of haste.
When the candidate(s) requires more time to complete procedures, checklist or briefing, they should make a request for a speed reduction, hold clearance or delaying vector. The ACP will make every effort to accommodate requests of this nature.
Simulator Operation - Simulator
The candidate(s) should be briefed that the PPC will be conducted in real time as much as possible but that re-positioning or position freezes are permitted.
Weather – Simulator
Weather conditions will be set in accordance with the flight test exercise. In general, weather during approaches will be at or below approach limits.
The individual or crew must determine if the weather is suitable.
Weather – Aircraft
The ACP may defer briefing the actual weather conditions to the pre-flight brief phase of the Flight Check.
Adequate Visual Reference During Approach – Simulator
The landing pilot will be expected to land if the required visual references are present, otherwise a missed approach will be carried out.
Adequate Visual Reference During Approach – Aircraft
Notwithstanding an operator’s training procedures, if the ACP does not report “field in sight” at the appropriate minimums, the candidate is expected to execute a missed approach.
Safe Flight Checking Practices – Aircraft
Any restrictions or limits imposed on manoeuvres conducted in the aircraft to ensure safety must be followed. These may be provided by the operator or adopted from the safe Flight Checking practices detailed in this document.
ACP Flight Crew Status - Aircraft
For PPCs conducted in an aircraft, the role of the ACP in regard to crew duties if he/she occupies a flight crew position.
ACP Role Playing – Simulator
For PPCs conducted in a simulator, the role of the ACP with respect to other crewmembers (e.g., cabin crew) or external agencies (e.g., ground crew, ATC, dispatch personnel) must be specified.
Transferring Control
Notwithstanding an operator’s SOPs, the method of transferring control from one pilot to the other must be established. The most common method is by the pilot flying stating, "You have control” and the pilot monitoring stating “I have control”;
Realism – Simulator
The use of headsets, shoulder harnesses and the tuning of radio frequencies will be the same as normal operations to the maximum extent possible.
Realism – Aircraft
While realistic scenarios should be present during each flight test exercise, it is critical that any checking scenario does not impede the safe operations of the aircraft.
Simulated Emergencies and Abnormals – Simulator
For PPCs conducted in a simulator, the crew should treat all malfunctions as real.
An abnormal or emergency situation caused by an incorrect or inappropriate action or response on the part of the candidate(s) will not be corrected by the ACP.
Simulated Emergencies and Abnormals - Aircraft
The manner in which simulated emergencies and abnormal situations will be discussed and coordinated by the ACP.
Procedures detailed in an operator’s SOPs are to be respected.
As a minimum, all such events are to be preceded by the word “simulated”.
An abnormal or emergency situation caused by an incorrect or inappropriate action or response on the part of the candidate(s) will be corrected by the ACP.
Simulated Compound Emergencies and Abnormals
The ACP will not introduce multiple unrelated emergencies while airborne (simulator or aircraft). The candidate is expected to take corrective action on secondary failures resulting from the primary emergency or abnormal.
Actual Malfunction - Simulator
If a simulator malfunction occurs, the PPC will be discontinued and the crew advised immediately. The ACP will determine whether it is possible to resume the PPC.
Actual Malfunction - Aircraft
If an aircraft malfunction occurs, the PPC will be discontinued and the malfunction dealt with prior to resuming (if possible) the Flight Check.
Automation
Handling and use of automation will be discussed.
Simulator Safety Briefing
Knowledge of escape procedures and safety devices must be briefed by the ACP or the simulator operator.
Simulator/Aircraft Differences
Any differences between the simulator and the aircraft that may affect the performance of the flight crew will be discussed.
(aa) Operational Restrictions – Aircraft or Simulator
(i) Any operational restrictions, not preventing the use of the aircraft or simulator for a PPC, should be reviewed.
(bb) Note Taking
(i) The candidate(s) should be briefed that the ACP will be taking notes during the Flight Check.
(cc) Candidate Mistakes
It is important to remind a candidate(s) not to dwell on a mistake but to focus on the present and future. Unless the ACP stops the evaluation, the candidate is progressing towards a successful PPC.
Mistakes are a normal aspect of flight operations and this is recognized by Transport Canada in applications of threat and error management (TEM) by flight crew and also grading discretion by ACPs.
(dd) Start Position - Simulator
The ACP will specify whether the PPC will begin as a first, second or through flight setup.
The aircraft’s geographic location (i.e., gate, FBO etc.) will be briefed. A reference chart should be used.
(ee) Start Position - Aircraft
(i) The ACP may defer briefing the location of the aircraft to the pre-flight brief phase of the Flight Check.
(ff) Flight Check Briefing Conclusion
(i) Upon completion of the briefing, the ACP will offer an opportunity for the candidate(s) to seek any clarifications needed before continuing with the next phase of the Flight Check.
A Line Check Flight Check briefing is less onerous than that of a PPC. It is, however, mandatory and serves several purposes. Its focus is to discuss the functional aspects of the Flight Check and to put the candidate at ease. It is usually delivered following the introduction and administrative phase.
A Flight Check briefing does not replace the requirement of a pre-flight brief.
Candidates are briefed individually unless paired together as a crew. Time should be taken during and following the Flight Check briefing to address any questions the candidate may have.
The following briefing elements must be covered. The ACP may reorganize, combine and/or even defer some of these elements to the introduction and administration, or pre-flight briefing phases of the Line Check.
Purpose
The purpose of the Line Check must be stated and agreed upon by the candidate. It must be determined whether the Line Check is an:
initial,
renewal, or
upgrade.
Crew Duty Position and Seat Assignment
Although there is no performance differentiation, the candidate’s duty position (i.e., pilot-in-command, second-in-command or cruise relief pilot) must be established.
Seat assignment must also be established.
Performance Standard
The aircraft is to be operated in accordance with aircraft flight manual (AFM), SOPs and other appropriate documents.
Possible Outcomes
The concept of jeopardy should be mentioned which will result in one of the following outcomes:
successful attempt;
unsuccessful attempt; or
incomplete attempt.
Expected Duration
The duration of Line Check is from check-in to defect reporting at the end of the flight(s).
The number of flight legs must also be specified.
ACP Flight Crew Status - Aircraft
The role of the ACP with respect to crew duties will be specified.
Oral Question
The ACP may ask technical questions concerning aircraft operations, rules of the air and ATC procedures, SOPs and the operator’s Flight Operations Manual.
Normal Crew Coordination & SOPs
Normal crew co-ordination and the use of SOPs is expected.
Note Taking
Taking brief, factual and unobtrusive notes by the ACP will occur during the check. This should not distract the candidate(s).
Candidate Mistakes
It is important to remind a candidate(s) not to dwell on a mistake but to focus on the present and future.
Mistakes are a normal aspect of flight operations and this is recognized by Transport Canada in the application of threat and error management (TEM) and ACP discretion.
Flight Check Briefing Conclusion
Upon completion of the briefing, the ACP will offer an opportunity for the candidate(s) to seek any clarifications needed before continuing with the next phase of the Flight Check.
Technical knowledge and flight planning are orally assessed during the ground assessment phase of a PPC.
Length and Scope of the Oral Assessment
The length of the oral test depends on the complexity of the aircraft and operation. Under normal conditions, the assessment should never exceed one (1) hour. The oral assessment must never create a level of mental fatigue that could affect the performance of the candidate(s) during the air assessment.
The scope and performance criteria are specified in the applicable CARs Part VII Commercial Air Service Standard (CASS) and applicable PPC and Aircraft Type Rating - Flight Test Guide.
Candidates are expected to possess a broad understanding of the aircraft and its systems rather than a highly detailed knowledge of component design and construction. They should be able to demonstrate an understanding of the essential features of system design and how various systems interrelate.
Bank of Questions
ACPs should choose their questions from the entire range of appropriate topics rather than concentrate on only a few topics. Questions should be related to the specific characteristics of the aircraft involved.
It is recommended that the ACP have a bank of questions prepared for all the required items or areas of the ground assessment. An extensive bank of questions allows an ACP to vary the ground assessment candidate to candidate.
Multi-Crew PPCs
Where the aircraft is operated in a multi-crew environment, candidates may be assessed together. In all other circumstances, Flight Check candidates must be assessed individually and separately.
Resources Available to the Candidate
ACPs are encouraged to make use of cockpit layout diagrams, ground and/or flight training devices. Interactive logic available in some of these devices provides an effective method of testing the candidate’s knowledge of both aircraft systems and normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures.
Other resources available to the candidate(s) may include AFMs/RFMs, QRHs, COMs, and IFR publications such as maps and approach plates.
Assessment of Technical Knowledge and Flight Planning
If a candidate is not successful during an assessment of technical knowledge or flight planning, the Flight Check must be terminated without proceeding to the air assessment phase. A proper Flight Check debrief is provided, however.
Proceeding to the Flight Portion of a PPC
Immediately after the ground assessment, the candidate will be advised of the results. For a successful assessment, the ACP will not debrief any specifics of the assessment until the PPC is completed. The ground assessment must be corrected to 100% during the PPC debrief.
(1) There is no requirement to conduct a ground assessment during a Line Check.
A pre-flight briefing (as applicable) must be conducted in accordance with operator SOPs regardless of whether the air assessment is conducted in a simulator or aircraft. This is to foster normal crew behaviors prior to the air assessment. The ACP will simply observe and not participate unless also acting as a crew member.
No formal assessment of the pre-flight briefing is to be provided.
A pre-flight briefing (as applicable) must be conducted in accordance with operator SOPs. The ACP will simply observe this briefing unless also acting as a crew member.
A formal assessment of the pre-flight briefing (i.e., crew briefing) is to be provided.
(1) Refer to the appropriate CARs Part VII CASS PPC schedule, the applicable Pilot Proficiency Check and Aircraft Type Rating - Flight Test Guide and other sections of this manual for policies regarding the air assessment phase.
(1) Refer to the appropriate CARs Part VII CASS guidance, the applicable Pilot Proficiency Check and Aircraft Type Rating - Flight Test Guide and other sections of this manual for policies regarding the air assessment phase.
(1) Notwithstanding an operator’s SOPs, the ACP may combine a post flight debrief with the Flight Check debrief.
(1) A post flight debrief in accordance with an operator’s SOPs must be carried out. Notwithstanding an operator’s SOPs, the ACP may combine a post flight debrief with the Flight Check debrief.
Occasionally, it may not be possible to complete a Flight Check due to circumstances:
beyond the control of the candidate(s); and
other than unsuccessful performance (e.g., slow but acceptable performance by the candidate resulting in not all Flight Check items being completed in the allotted time).
At the discretion of the ACP, these circumstances may include (but are not limited to) the following:
environmental;
mechanical (simulator or aircraft); and
bona fide personal challenges (e.g., illness).
Flight Test Exercises – Credits and Reassessment
It is at the discretion of the ACP who conducted the incomplete Flight Check whether credit is to be received for flight test exercises successfully completed. In general, flight test exercises should only be assessed once. ACPs may assess any flight test exercise in accordance with the following:
there is a concern with the candidate’s proficiency; or
the flight test exercise has been performed as part of normal flight requirements (e.g., take-off).
If the ACP or CASI elects to continue the Flight Check from the point where it was stopped, the following applies:
the second session must take place within 30 days of the signature date of the original letter of recommendation;
the original letter of recommendation for the Flight Check remains valid; and
the subsequent assessment event involves the same candidate(s) and is ideally conducted by the same ACP.
Should the second session also be stopped for circumstances beyond the control of the candidate or ACP, then the subsequent check must be a complete Flight Check.
Certain regulatory and operational differences exist between aeroplane and helicopter PPCs. These differences are incorporated into grading policies below.
Under no circumstance will an unsuccessful PPC attempt be upgraded to a successful training event.
Under no circumstance will an unsuccessful PPC/IFR attempt be upgraded to a successful PPC/VFR attempt.
There is one instance where an unsuccessful pilot-in-command (PIC) PPC may be assessed otherwise. The unsuccessful (PIC) PPC assessment option is described below.
A PPC will be assessed as unsuccessful under one of following conditions:
Pilot-In-Command (PIC)
Second-In-Command (SIC)
Cruise Relief Pilot (CRP)
When an ACP decides that a Flight Check will be assessed as an unsuccessful attempt, the Flight Check must be terminated immediately.
When two candidates are paired during a PPC and the first candidate is unsuccessful, that individual cannot be used as a seat partner for the second portion of the same PPC or any other PPC until retrained and recommended for retest as a minimum.
A Line Check will be assessed as unsuccessful relative to those flight test exercises listed in CASS 725.106 and under one of following conditions:
Pilot-In-Command (PIC)
Second-In-Command (SIC)
Cruise Relief Pilot (CRP)
Note: The above unsuccessful criteria based on the number of twos (2s) is relative to approximately 30 separate flight test exercises found on a PPC flight test report. Air operators may increase these numeric criteria thresholds based on a ratio that is less than the following: |
one two (2) per 10 flight check exercises – PICs and CRPs, and
one two (2) per 6 flight check exercises – SICs.
When an ACP decides that a Flight Check will be assessed as an unsuccessful attempt, the Flight Check must be terminated immediately.
In general, an unsuccessful PPC will not be upgraded to a successful event of any kind. This speaks to the notion of jeopardy. There is one exception, however.
An unsuccessful pilot-in-command (PIC) PPC may be re-assessed as a successful second-in- command (SIC) PPC subject to all the following:
The air operator has not established a seat-dependent operation (e.g., A PIC normally occupies the left);
The candidate’s performance satisfies the criteria of a successful SIC PPC;
The air operator sanctions the assessment change of an unsuccessful PIC PPC to a successful SIC PIC;
The candidate agrees with the assessment change of an unsuccessful PIC PPC to a successful SIC PIC; and
The awarding of a successful SIC PPC is captured in the General Remarks section of the PPC Flight Test Report.
A Flight Check debrief is mandatory.
The conduct of the debrief must take place in a positive, non-confrontational manner. ACPs must also be sensitive to the candidate’s level of fatigue following a Flight Check and structure their debrief accordingly. An area free of distractions should be utilized.
The Flight Check debrief may be combined or serve as a post flight debrief unless an operator’s SOPs dictate otherwise.
ACPs must avoid an exhaustive chronological review of the flight and instead focus on important aspects of the assessment.
Flight Check Outcome
Following any Flight Check, the candidate(s) is to be advised of the outcome of the Flight Check. Instead of using the terms pass or fail, ACPs are to use the following terminology:
successful attempt;
unsuccessful attempt; or
incomplete.
Reference Material
The ACP is expected to reference the operator’s COM, SOP’s, checklists, AFM, the applicable Pilot Proficiency Check and Aircraft Type Rating - Flight Test Guide and other pertinent documents to explain important aspects of the assessment.
Mandatory Debrief Items
It is mandatory to debrief the following:
any Flight Check items assessed as either a one (1) or two (2); and
anything the ACP considers a safety issue.
Debriefing Methods
There are two debrief methods recognized by Transport Canada within the ACP program. ACPs will select one of the following methods depending on the outcome of the Flight Check and the number of candidates tested:
the traditional debrief; and
the facilitated debrief;
Successful Attempt
Normally, a facilitated debrief (incorporating the C-A-L model) is used for a successful Flight Check attempt.
The traditional debrief may be used for a routine Flight Check with only minor mistakes and where a facilitated debrief would add little value.
Unsuccessful Attempt
The traditional debrief must be used in the case of an unsuccessful Flight Check attempt. The C-A-L model is not incorporated in this case.
Multi-Crew versus Single-Pilot
Following a successful multi-crew Flight Check, the ACP is expected to debrief the Flight Check using a facilitated debrief. Where only one candidate was assessed, the ACP may use a facilitated debrief if the seat substitute pilot is available to participate.
Single piloted aircraft candidates may still benefit from the facilitated debrief method, however the ACP may deem the traditional debrief method more appropriate.
Regardless of the debrief method employed, the debrief should promote learning and increase the knowledge and confidence of the candidate(s).
During a traditional debrief, the ACP leads discussion points.
Historically, the traditional debrief was associated with only technical assessment elements (i.e., aircraft handling and knowledge and skills). Today it must encompass both technical and non- technical elements (i.e., cooperation, leadership and managerial skills, situational awareness and
decision making) from the 4-Point Marking Scale and related non-technical concepts (i.e., communication, automation and threat and error management).
While a candidate(s) must be debriefed as soon as practical following a Flight Check, the ACP must ensure that the debrief is thoroughly prepared and accurate. ACPs should review the Flight Check in a logical order which is not necessarily chronological.
A traditional debrief should be organized as follows:
overall assessment of the Flight Check (i.e., successful or unsuccessful);
performance strengths;
performance weaknesses;
questions and feedback; and
specific actions necessary for the candidate to improve future performance.
While it may be easier to concentrate on negative performance, the candidate may be more receptive to assessments of poor performance if good performance is recognized first.
A candidate's performance shouldn’t be specifically critiqued until their knowledge of a procedure and/or motivations for actions taken have been determined. While criticism should be balanced by praise, ACPs must be plain-spoken if the candidate is to receive full benefit of the debrief.
The facilitated debrief emphasizes candidate self-critique. This method of debriefing draws upon the candidate’s professional experience to enhance learning.
An effective facilitated debrief ensures that candidates do most of the talking. Ideally, the flight crew should discuss issues among themselves and thoroughly analyze situations that confronted them during the Flight Check.
The facilitated debrief must cover both technical elements (i.e., aircraft handling and knowledge and skills) and non-technical elements (i.e., cooperation, leadership and managerial skills, situational awareness and decision making) from the 4-Point Marking Scale. Related technical and non-technical concepts (i.e., communication, automation and threat and error management) should also be considered.
Levels of Facilitation
There are three levels of facilitation; high, medium and low. An ACP should strive to use the highest level of facilitation possible.
High Level Facilitation
High level facilitation is possible when the crew discovers and discusses important issues on their own with minimal guidance from the ACP. For facilitating a discussion at this level, the flight crewmembers must be able to do the following:
identify important topics and issues that arose during the Flight Check;
set an agenda for discussing these issues,
analyze (critically) the situation; and
evaluate how well they performed.
The ACP’s role is as follows:
inform the crew of the objectives for the debrief,
outline the debrief process; and
assist in guiding the discussion only when necessary.
Although the ACP retains responsibility for ensuring that the debrief objectives are met, the ACP achieves this through general guidance rather than actually leading the discussion.
Medium Level Facilitation
Medium level facilitation occurs when the ACP must help the crew discover important issues and lessons by asking questions.
An ACP will encourage the crew to analyze situations and their performance in greater detail during this level of facilitation.
The ACP must therefore lead the discussion more directly.
Low Level Facilitation
Low level facilitation does not imply inadequate facilitation on the part of the ACP. It may be necessary and appropriate to use when crews do not respond to higher levels of facilitation.
Low level facilitation must be employed when flight crewmembers show little initiative and respond only superficially. At this level, self-discovery by the crew is limited, however the ACP is still encouraged to use effective facilitation techniques to lead the crew to critical issues, appropriate solutions and correct evaluation.
The ACP is expected to summarize each item and confirm the flight crew understands and agrees with the outcome of the discussion before moving on to the next debrief item.
Conducting a Facilitated Debrief
Introduction and Format
An introduction lays the foundation for the debrief. It should explicitly state how the crew and the ACP will participate. It should also include the following:
clarify your role and set expectations for crew participation;
provide rationale for the use of facilitation debrief;
explain the format or model that will be used (e.g., C-A-L model); and
explain that all critical areas will be covered.
Agenda
An agenda is helpful to identify items that must be discussed. It may be either formal or informal. While an agenda should include areas of both good and poor performance, it must contain any flight test exercises assessed a mark of two (2).
To promote crew discussion, the crew should develop the agenda with the ACP.
Behaviour Model (e.g., C-A-L Model)
Organizing the discussion with the use of a recognized behaviour model provides a structure that will ensure that non-technical evaluation elements and related concepts are discussed in addition to technical evaluation elements.
The ACP should use the operator’s specific model, if available, otherwise the C- A-L model detailed in this manual should be employed.
Recommended Techniques and Practices
The following techniques and practices are provided. Transport Canada encourages ACPs to refine their style of facilitation to suit both the candidate and their operator:
Participation encourages adult learning.
Do not lecture or make long speeches.
Do not give the impression that only your views are important.
Balance the role of ACP and facilitator (ensuring that all of your points are covered).
Use facilitation to meet debrief objectives.
Adapt facilitation to the level of crew experience and performance to meet crew needs.
Adjust your facilitation to the level needed to engage crew to the maximum extent.
Ensure that both technical and non-technical issues are discussed.
Keep discussion crew-centered.
Ensure the crew analyzes performance and discusses how to do better.
Encourage crewmembers to do most of the talking.
Ask questions that begin with what, how and why (open-ended questions).
Re-word questions instead of giving the answer.
Use questions to promote in-depth crew participation.
Ask quiet crewmembers to comment on what other crewmembers said.
Re-direct crew comments and questions back to them.
Use silence/pauses to elicit thoughtful crew responses.
Ask follow-up questions that require in-depth analysis.
Ask crew to analyze the reasoning behind their decisions.
Do not interrupt the crew or leave a topic while they still want to talk.
Do not give your own analysis before the crew.
Reinforce good crew performance following crew analysis.
It is known that CRM skills are frequently the underlying cause(s) of poor as well as excellent performance. It is imperative these skills are reviewed during a Flight Check debrief.
C-A-L stands for CRM, analysis (and evaluation) and line flying.
The C-A-L model is a facilitated debrief method that ensures participation by the flight crew members and promotes an in-depth review and analysis of non-technical (i.e., CRM) evaluation elements. It goes further by relating performance to the line flying environment.
Transport Canada has adopted the C-A-L model during facilitated Flight Check debriefs as detailed in the following publication: NASA Technical Memorandum 112192, Facilitating LOS Debriefings: A Training Manual, March 1997.
C-A-L Model for Facilitated Debriefing | |
C | CRM (non-technical elements and related concepts) |
A | Analysis and Evaluation |
L | Line Operations |
Display a list of non-technical elements and related non-technical concepts.
Tie discussion points to operational issues.
Explicitly evaluate performance during the Flight Check.
How effective was management of the situation?
What went well, and why?
What could be improved, and how?
Interactively analyze the situation confronted.
What happened?
How was it managed (include non-technical techniques utilized)?
Why was it managed that way?
Discuss how the Flight Check performance and associated non-technical elements and related concepts relate to line operations.
Discuss related line incidents that illustrate non-technical elements and related non-technical concepts.
Discuss how to apply Flight Check success to line operations.
Discuss how things could have been done differently.
What could have been done differently to improve the outcome in the Flight Check?
What non-technical element and/or related non-technical concepts techniques could have helped?
How could you turn areas for improvement into strengths?
What can be done to prevent or manage similar situations on the line?
In the event of an unsuccessful Flight Check attempt, ACPs must use the traditional debrief method.
During the debrief, actions or comments by the ACP must be respectful toward the candidate. ACPs and candidates should keep in mind that it is not the ACP who deems the candidate unsuccessful, but rather it is the candidate whose performance, on that day, has not met the minimum skill standards.
The ACP will discuss the reason(s) for the unsuccessful Flight Check attempt in descending order of severity and make reference to appropriate publications such as the applicable Pilot Proficiency Check and Aircraft Type Rating - Flight Test Guide, checklists, SOP’s, QRH’s etc.
Minor observations are not to be discussed at this time.
Unsuccessful Attempt - PPC
The ACP must inform the candidate(s) of the following:
ACPs do not serve suspension notices.
A Transport Canada Issuing Authority will serve a notice in accordance with subsection 6.71(2) of the Act which will not suspend PPC privileges but will merely maintain its current status until:
a subsequent attempt at its renewal is successful; or
its privileges lapse by virtue of reaching the end of its validity period.
Instrument ratings are no longer suspended, however are subject to recency requirements.
Appropriate stakeholders will be notified by the ACP including the Chief Pilot. Sequences that received an assessment of two (2) or less will be detailed with recommendations for re-training.
Avenues for review available to the candidate include contacting Transport Canada or submitting a request for review to the Transportation Appeals Tribunal of Canada (TATC).
Unsuccessful Attempt - Line Check
The ACP must inform the candidate(s) of the following:
ACPs do not serve suspension notices.
Transport Canada issuing authorities will not serve a notice of suspension.
Appropriate stakeholders will be notified by the ACP including the chief pilot. Sequences that received a mark of two (2) or less will be detailed with recommendations for re-training.
Where the ACP has terminated a flight check and the ACP is a training pilot, the time remaining in the session may be used as training subject to the following:
the candidate is advised at the time of unsuccessful attempt and agrees with continuing the flight or simulator session as a training flight;
the ACP is a designated company training pilot on type;
no other crewmember(s) are being evaluated; and
the ACP completes the Flight Test Report - Pilot Proficiency Check form (Form 26-0249 or 26-0279) with the result assessed as an unsuccessful attempt, submits the original to Transport Canada and follows the procedures for refusal to issue the PPC.
Where the ACP has terminated a Line Check and the ACP is a training pilot, the flight, or planned series of flights, may proceed as Line Indoctrination at the ACPs discretion until all planned legs have been completed.
The practice of holding the report of an unsuccessful Flight Check until a subsequent Flight Check has been successfully completed is unacceptable.
Remedial Training and Recommendation
Prior to a subsequent Flight Check attempt, the candidate shall receive remedial training on all items assessed a mark of one (1) or two (2).
Following remedial training, a written recommendation from a training pilot that the candidate is ready for a complete Flight Check re-attempt must be provided.
The written recommendation must be retained in the candidates training file maintained by the air operator.
Flight Test Exercise Credits
When an original Flight Check is assessed as unsuccessful, no credit from that Flight Check may be applied to a subsequent attempt.
ACP Assigned to a Subsequent PPC Attempt
In the event of a candidate’s second PPC attempt, the Transport Canada Issuing Authority must be notified. The same ACP may be assigned at the discretion of the operator.
In the event of a candidate’s third PPC attempt, the Transport Canada Issuing Authority must be notified and will guide the assignment, in the following order, one of the following check pilots:
A CASI;
A different ACP; or
With the concurrence of the candidate, the original ACP.
ACP Assigned to a Subsequent Line Check Attempt
The designation of an ACP for any Line Check reattempt will be at the discretion of the operator.
The ACP Manual previously provided instructions on how to complete the following forms:
Flight Test Report - Pilot Proficiency Check form (Forms 26-0249/26-0279)
Flight Crew Permit / Licence – Application for Endorsement of a Rating form (Form 26- 0083)
Aviation Document Booklet (ADB)
Temporary Licence (Form 26-0266)
Certification of Additional Privileges Card (Form 26-0267)
Due to the development and deployment of online report forms, this information has been moved to ACP Bulletin no. 01/24 found on the ACP/AQPE Program website where guidance can be updated more frequently.
Note: Forms 26-0249/26-0279 have been replaced by the Transport Canada Online PPC Flight Test Report.
ACPs are required to maintain records that are protected personal information. As such, these records must be kept in a secure location. Electronic and/or paper records are acceptable.
Records (i.e., documents) to be retained include those which provide evidence of the following:
date of completion of the most recent ACP Course (Recurrent or Initial) (i.e., course certificate);
date of completion of the most recent approved recurrent (ground and flight) flight crew training program (e.g., course certificate);
date of the ACP’s own most recent successful PPC (i.e., Transport Canada Online PPC Flight Test Report (previously forms 26-0249/26-0279)) or approved alternate means of compliance (e.g., letter or email from training provider);
copy of the most recent Approved Check Pilot (ACP) Monitor Report (Form 26-0844) which was successful;
list of past Flight Checks that the ACP conducted;
copies of completed Transport Canada Online PPC Flight Test Report (previously forms 26-0249/26-0279) and Flight Crew Permit / Licence – Application for Endorsement of a Rating form (Form 26-0083) completed and submitted by the ACP;
copies of incomplete Flight Test Report - Pilot Proficiency Check forms (Form 26-0249 or 26-0279); and
Letter of ACP Accreditation.
service may be utilized for record keeping. A log of these reports, however, should be maintained.
Retention Requirement
All pertinent ACP records (e.g., submitted PPC Flight Test Reports) are to be maintained for a period of at least two (2) years.
Availability Requirement
ACP records must be readily available to Transport Canada upon request.
ACPs must be prepared to produce such records during each ACP Monitor.
Prior to the issuing temporary (additional) privileges to a pilot’s licence, ACPs who have authorized person privileges shall ensure that all the licensing requirements have been met. These include the following five (5) basic requirements:
age;
medical fitness;
knowledge;
experience; and
skill.
Detailed requirements are provided in Part IV, Subpart 421 of the CARs.
Consult TP 15419 - Authorized Person Policy Manual (Aeroplane and Helicopter) for additional policy information.
(1) The requirements for issuing an individual type rating are outlined in Part IV, Section 421.40 of the CARs - Blanket and Individual Type Ratings.
(1) The requirements for issuing an instrument rating are outlined in Part IV, Section 421.46 of the CARs – Requirements.
Following a successful PPC, the ACP must complete the following administration:
Complete the competency record in the Aviation Document Booklet (ADB) and/or required company documents (i.e., PPC record, flight crew member record of checking/training, etc.);
Provide feedback (if applicable) to the recommending instructor or chief pilot; and
Within five (5) working days, complete and submit to Transport Canada the following applicable reports/forms: Transport Canada Online PPC Flight Test Report (previously forms 26-0249/26-0279), 26-0083 and 26-0267 as required;
For ACPs holding authorized person privileges, endorse the Aviation Document Booklet (ADB) or issue an Additional Privileges card (Form 26-0267) with additional privileges of a type and/or initial instrument rating as required.
ACPs may provide a copy of the Transport Canada Online PPC Flight Test Report (previously forms 26-0249/26-0279) to the candidate. They may also provide a copy (upon request) to other appropriate parties such as the operator, training organization or chief pilot.
Following an unsuccessful PPC, an ACP must notify the Transport Canada Issuing Authority of the circumstances by email, fax, voicemail or an operator’s established procedure.
The Transport Canada Online PPC Flight Test Report (previously forms 26-0249/26-0279) must be submitted within five (5) working days.
The Canadian Aviation Document Booklet (ADB) is a Canadian aviation document (CAD). There are special conditions associated with the suspending or cancelling CADs.
While Part IV, Subsection 421.17(2) of the CARs provides instructions regarding the administrative actions following an unsuccessful flight test for a rating renewal, in 2011 a Transport Canada staff instruction (SI-SUR-016) provided direction that ACPs shall not draw a line through the rating on the licence or add a notation in the Aviation Document Booklet (ADB).
The ACP must complete the following administration:
Complete required company documents as appropriate (i.e., PPC record, flight crew member record of checking/training, etc.);
Provide feedback and any recommended retraining requirements to the recommending instructor or chief pilot; and
Within five (5) working days, complete and submit the Transport Canada Online PPC Flight Test Report (previously forms 26-0249/26-0279) as required.
If the PPC was in support of a renewal, there are two cases where a Transport Canada Issuing Authority will consider suspending, canceling or refusing to renew a PPC. These are detailed in the Aeronautics Act, Sections 7.1(1)(a) and 7.1(1)(c). ACPs can obtain further guidance from their Transport Canada Issuing Authority.
ACPs may provide a copy of the Transport Canada Online PPC Flight Test Report (previously forms 26-0249/26-0279) to the candidate or upon request to other appropriate parties such as the operator, training organization or chief pilot.
In the event of an unsuccessful PPC attempt, the candidate(s) will normally receive a “Notice of Refusal to Issue or Amend a Canadian Aviation Document” letter from Transport Canada.
Transport Canada Issuing Authority Review
If not currently pursuing a TATC review, a candidate may request a review of the assessment be conducted by a Transport Canada Issuing Authority. If a candidate is not satisfied with the review, the option of requesting a review by the TATC remains available.
Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada (TATC) Review
Candidate(s) have the right to request a review of the assessment to the TATC. A date will be specified in the notice from Transport Canada when an application for review must be submitted by.
Additional information is available on the TATC website.
Validity Periods and Valid-to Dates
Validity periods are either six (6), twelve (12) or twenty-four (24) months. They are dependent upon conditions found in CARs Subparts 702, 703, 704 and 705.
The date at the end of a validity period is administratively known as the ‘valid-to date’ and normally falls on the 1st day of a month.
Expiry
A validity period continues until the end of a valid-to date (e.g., 23:59 GMT) in accordance with the Canadian Interpretation Act (R.S.C. 1985 c. I-21; 27(3) – Beginning and ending of prescribed periods). This normally coincides with the end of the 1st day of a month.
Renewal
Where a PPC or Line Check is renewed within the last 90 days of a validity period, the original valid-to date (i.e., day and month) is used to calculate a subsequent valid-to date. The 90-day period preceding the valid-to date is normally calculated from the beginning of a valid-to date (e.g., 00:01 GMT) for convenience.
Extension
Where applicable, Transport Canada Issuing Authorities will endeavor to provide an extension that coincides with the 1st day of a month, however any extension up to 60 days may be provided.
Extension dates are not normally taken into account regarding the renewal of a validity period.
The table below provides administrative guidance on determining a new valid-to date where there is and is not a present (i.e., existing) valid-to date.
Six (6) Month Validity Period - CARs Subpart 705 | |||
Initial | Recurrent / Upgrade | ||
Prior to Within 90 Days of a Valid-to Date | Within 90 Days of a Valid-to Date | On or After a Valid-to Date | |
Valid to 1st day of the 7th month based on the date of the PPC. | Valid to 1st day of the 7th month based on the date of the PPC. | Valid for 6 months from the present (i.e., existing) valid-to date. | Valid to 1st day of the 7th month based on the date of the PPC. |
Twelve (12) Month Validity Period - CARs Subparts 703, 704 and 705* (see Note 1 below) | |||
Initial | Recurrent / Upgrade | ||
Prior to Within 90 Days of a Valid-to Date | Within 90 Days of a Valid-to Date | On or After a Valid-to Date | |
Valid to 1st day of the 13th month based on the date of the PPC. | Valid to 1st day of the 13th month based on the date of the PPC. | Valid for 12 months from the present (i.e., existing) valid-to date. | Valid to 1st day of the 13th month based on the date of the PPC. |
Twenty-Four (24) Month Validity Period - CARs Subparts 702, 704* (see Note 2 below) | |||
Initial | Recurrent / Upgrade | ||
Prior to Within 90 Days of a Valid-to Date | Within 90 Days of a Valid-to Date | On or After a Valid-to Date | |
Valid to 1st day of the 25th month based on the date of the PPC. | Valid to 1st day of the 25th month based on the date of the PPC. | Valid for 24 months from the present (i.e., existing) valid-to date. | Valid to 1st day of the 25th month based on the date of the PPC. |
al valid-to-date calculations: | ||||
RECURRENT PPC/LINE CHECK (WITHIN 90 DAYS) VALID TO DATES | ||||
Expiry Date | Date Completed | Valid To Date (6 Months) | Valid To Date (12/24 Months) | |
01 JULY | 02 APR to 30 JUNE | 01 JAN | 01 JULY | |
01 AUG | 03 MAY to 31 JULY | 01 FEB | 01 AUG | |
01 SEPT | 03 JUNE to 31 AUG | 01 MAR | 01 SEPT | |
01 OCT | 03 JULY to 30 SEPT | 01 APR | 01 OCT | |
01 NOV | 03 AUG to 31 OCT | 01 MAY | 01 NOV | |
01 DEC | 02 SEPT to 30 NOV | 01 JUNE | 01 DEC | |
01 JAN | 03 OCT to 31 DEC | 01 JULY | 01 JAN | |
01 FEB | 03 NOV to 31 JAN | 01 AUG | 01 FEB | |
01 MAR | 01 DEC to 28 FEB | 01 SEPT | 01 MAR | |
01 APR | 01 JAN to 31 MAR | 01 OCT | 01 APR | |
01 MAY | 31 JAN to 30 APR | 01 NOV | 01 MAY | |
01 JUNE | 03 MAR to 31 MAY | 01 DEC | 01 JUNE | |
The following tables will assist in manu
INITIAL PPC/LINE CHECK VALID TO DATES | ||
Month Completed | Valid To Date (6 Months) | Valid To Date (12/24 Months) |
JAN | 01 AUG | 01 FEB |
FEB | 01 SEPT | 01 MAR |
MAR | 01 OCT | 01 APR |
APR | 01 NOV | 01 MAY |
MAY | 01 DEC | 01 JUNE |
JUNE | 01 JAN | 01 JULY |
JUL | 01 FEB | 01 AUG |
AUG | 01 MAR | 01 SEPT |
SEPT | 01 APR | 01 OCT |
OCT | 01 MAY | 01 NOV |
NOV | 01 JUNE | 01 DEC |
DEC | 01 JULY | 01 JAN |
Leap Years (29th day in February) – 2020, 2024, 2028, 2032 RECURRENT PPC/Line Check (WITHIN 90 DAYS) VALID TO DATES | |||
Expiry Date | Date Completed | Valid To Date 6 Months | Valid to Date 12/24 Months |
01 MAR | 02 DEC to 29 FEB | 01 SEP | 01 MAR |
01 APR | 02 JAN to 31 MAR | 01 OCT | 01 APR |
01 MAY | 01 FEB to 30 APR | 01 NOV | 01 MAY |
Safety is one of the greatest benefits of conducting Flight Checks (i.e., Pilot Proficiency Check (PPCs)) in a simulator. While desired, this is not always possible and thus the use of aircraft continues.
In considering airborne PPCs, no set of instructions can address all possible safety concerns. While Transport Canada provides the following guidance and advice, this information is generic and non-aircraft specific. To ensure safety, Transport Canada relies heavily on the following:
The ability of Approved Check Pilots (ACPs) to fully exercise their duty of care in providing a safe Flight Check environment; and
Operator developed safe checking practices that are based upon experience and aircraft specific reference documentation.
ACPs are required (as a minimum) to abide by the following safe checking practices. Any similar practices or procedures developed by an applicable operator must also be followed. In the case of conflict, ACPs should adhere to the most limiting practice.
ACPs are reminded that safety of flight in an airborne environment must always take priority over the accomplishment of a flight test exercise.
(1) ACPs must provide the candidate with a thorough Flight Check briefing as detailed in this manual. This guidance takes into account safety aspects of an airborne Flight Check.
The following general preparations must be followed:
Aircraft dual control availability (including brakes) must be verified prior to flight.
Radio communications between the candidates and Air Traffic Services (ATS) must be available to the ACP. The serviceable and functioning headset assembly or cockpit/cabin loudspeaker is to be verified.
Actions to be taken by flight crewmembers before any leave their station (e.g., seat change, short duration absences, etc.) should be discussed.
Verbal calls that may be made by the ACP as well as minimum airspeeds, altitudes or other conditions required for each planned exercise or sequence must be discussed.
(1) During the flight, a good lookout must be maintained by both candidates and the ACP.
Aircraft Systems – Aeroplane and Helicopter
Once the Flight Check has begun, the position of any system control should not be changed without the pilot-in-command's consent. The only exception is simulating failures provided proper and prior warning has been communicated to the flight crewmembers.
Approach to Stalls – Aeroplane
Stalls are to be performed in an appropriate simulator in lieu of an aircraft wherever possible. When required to be performed in an aeroplane, the following practices must be adhered to:
recovery is initiated on the first symptoms of a stall;
care is taken not to over-temp/over-torque an engine on recovery; and
initiation of the stall does not take place below the minimum altitude recommended in the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) or Aircraft Operating Manual (AOM) and in no case:
below 5,000 feet above ground level (AGL);
in cloud;
on top of clouds unless a well-defined horizon is available; or
below 2,000 feet above the top of well-defined clouds.
Balked Landing (All Engines Operating) - Aeroplane
This exercise must not be initiated below 50 feet above ground level (AGL). It must be initiated at an indicated airspeed (IAS) normally used for final flap selection during final approach.
Circuit Breakers – Aeroplane and Helicopter
Circuit breakers must never be pulled to simulate equipment failure.
Dutch Roll - Aeroplane
This exercise is to be performed in a simulator only.
Emergency/Rapid Descent - Aeroplane
This exercise is to be performed in a simulator where available.
Subparts 702, 703 and 704 of the CARs
This exercise is to be conducted clear of cloud; and
commenced at a minimum altitude of 5,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) or 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL); whichever is higher.
Subpart 705 of the CARs
This exercise is to be commenced at a minimum altitude of 10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) or 2,000 feet above the minimum enroute altitude (MEA); whichever is higher.
Engine Failure(s) on Take-Off (Before Decision Speed) - Aeroplane
This exercise (i.e., rejected take-off (RTO)) is to be conducted in a simulator only. If a simulator is not available, Flight Check candidates will brief the ACP on the required actions of the Pilot Flying (PF) and, where applicable the actions of the PM based on a RTO scenario specified by the ACP.
Engine Failure(s) on Take-Off (Before Decision Speed) - Helicopter
This exercise (i.e., rejected take-off (RTO)) is to be conducted at the discretion of the ACP. In this case, the candidate should be briefed prior to the Flight Check to anticipate the possibility of a rejected take-off
The ACP must be vigilant in ensuring that the candidate does not strike the tail due to an excessive nose high attitude during the flare and touchdown phase of the manoeuvre.
Engine Failure on Take-Off (After Decision Speed) - Aeroplane
No engine failure simulation should be initiated unless the conditions given below are met.
Single-Engine Aeroplanes
A suitable area for a forced landing must be within reach of the aeroplane. Exercise not to be initiated below 400 feet above ground level (AGL).
Multi-Engine Aeroplanes – Subparts 703 and 704 of the CARs
The landing gear and flaps are to be fully retracted and safe single-engine flight must be maintained. This exercise is not to be initiated below 400 feet above ground level (AGL).
Aeroplanes – Subpart 705 of the CARs
This exercise is not to be initiated below 400 feet above ground level (AGL).
The minimum airspeed during this exercise must not be less than the minimum control speed with the critical engine inoperative (VMCA) plus 20 KIAS or take off safety speed (V2) plus 10 KIAS as applicable.
Engine Failure – Helicopter
During Hover/Take off
This exercise must be conducted within a safe flight envelope over a level and firm surface.
During Cruise Flight, this exercise is not to be initiated below 500 feet above ground level (AGL) and must always be within normal auto-rotational range of a suitable engine-out landing area.
During Approach/Landing
If equipped, the use of the One Engine Inoperative (OEI) Training Switch should be used to the maximum extent during OEI approaches and landings.
For helicopters without an OEI switch, reducing the power on the second engine to simulate an OEI event should only be done in situations where it is not possible to achieve the same effect by verbally restricting the power available for the manoeuvre.
Engine-Out Missed Approach - Aeroplane
This exercise should not be initiated unless the conditions specified below are met.
Aeroplanes –Subparts 702, 703 and 704 of the CARs
This exercise is not to be initiated below 500 feet above ground level (AGL) or another higher altitude necessary to ensure single-engine safe flight is possible.
This exercise is not to be flown below an indicated airspeed (IAS) normally used for final flap selection during final approach.
Aeroplanes – Subpart 705 of the CARs
This exercise is not to be initiated below 200 feet above ground level (AGL).
This exercise is not to be flown below an indicated airspeed (IAS) normally used for final flap selection during final approach.
Flapless Approach – Aeroplanes (Subpart 705 of the CARs)
This exercise must be discontinued at a minimum of altitude of 50 feet above ground level (AGL) and a missed approach initiated where the flapless approach indicated airspeed (IAS) exceeds the normal landing flap approach indicated airspeed (IAS) by more than 20 KIAS.
Flight Controls - Manual Reversion – Aeroplane
This exercise is to be performed in appropriate simulator only.
Float Plane - Aeroplane
In other than glassy waters conditions, waves must be less than 18 inches high with no predominant swell.
In glassy waters conditions, defined objects must be available for height reference. A two nautical mile (NM) clear run is required for take-off and landing.
Rejected Take-off - Aeroplane
This exercise is to be performed in the appropriate simulator only.
Runaway Trim/Jammed Stabilizer - Aeroplane
Aeroplanes – Subparts 702, 703 and 704 of the CARs
This exercise is not to be conducted below 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL).
Aeroplanes – Subpart 705 of the CARs
This exercise is to be performed in the appropriate simulator only.
Simulated Forced Landing - Aeroplane
Recovery must be completed above 200 feet above ground level (AGL).
Ski Plane - Aeroplane
The following sequences must be completed before making a full stop landing:
low-level inspection;
touch-and-go; and
airborne final inspection of tracks.
Stop and Go - Aeroplane
Aeroplanes – Subparts 702, 703 and 704 of the CARs
See Touch and Go requirements (below).
Aeroplanes – Subpart 705 of the CARs
This exercise is not permitted. The full available runway length must be used.
Touch and Go – Aeroplane
Aeroplanes – Subparts 702, 703 and 704 of the CARs
Must have sufficient runway remaining from touchdown point to reconfigure the aircraft, apply take-off power and safely accelerate to take-off speed.
Aeroplanes –Subpart 705 of the CARs
Must meet critical field length or balanced field length requirements, as applicable. A full briefing of all applicable procedures and verbal calls must be conducted by the ACP prior to this exercise.
