CPL Solo X-C: Can I carry a passenger?

The most dangerous phrase in the language is "We've always done it this way" - Rear Admiral Hopper, United States Navy.

If you've ever been to one of our Flight Instructor Refresher Courses (FIRCs) you may remember this quote. It's something we try to incorporate when thinking about why we conduct pilot training a certain way. Is it the best way, or is it simply the way we were taught?

A foundation of this process is of course regulations - keeping in mind that regulations simply set a "floor". We can and should strive to do better. The challenge can be that regulations may be confusing. As a national FIRC provider we enjoy the benefit of having attendees from across the country and the various Transport Canada regions. In some cases, this is how we learn of different interpretations from TC across Canada.

One of our goals as a provider is to contact TC headquarters for a national directive when confusion and varying policies exist. That's what we did when we found out that different regions allowed or disallowed passenger carrying during the CPL 300NM cross-country flight. Here's the relevant section of the CARs with the key words highlighted:

Because the 300NM XC is required as part of the 65 hours of commercial training (it is a training flight, requiring a pre-flight briefing and instructor authorization, versus simple time building for the 200 hours) TC HQ at one point indicated that this would fall under (c)(i) above and therefore, no passenger was to be carried on board. Whether you want to describe it as a "mutual cross country" or anything else, TC said that the student had to be the only person on board.

However, the current position of TC (revised 2018) is that (a) would apply since you are flying an aeroplane.  (c)(i) would only apply if you were using your PPL essentially as a SPP in an alternate category of aircraft (for example, so that you could take the twin solo during your multi engine rating).  Therefore TC will not apply enforcement action if you do have a student complete the 300NM XC on the CPL with a passenger (sidenote: there is nothing in the CARs that limits passenger carrying during dual instruction, so we will only focus on solo flying).

This raises two interesting points. Using the current interpretation logic, a student who is licensed as PPL holder, working on their CPL, may carry passengers for the entire 30 hours of solo flight time towards a CPL - including activities such as stall practise. This would not be permitted when flying on a SPP or when using clause (c)(i) above.

The second point, is that a student in an Integrated program, who does not hold a PPL, cannot take a passenger with them on any flights as they are using a SPP. That may be one reason many Integrated programs take the time to issue a PPL during the course; even though in theory they could go from SPP to CPL without ever needing the PPL or night rating issued seperately.

With all that being said, I would point out that the above is only the opinion of TC on how to interpret this CAR.  A precedent can only be made by a court.  If there were ever an accident, where the passenger was injured or killed, I would suggest that the wording of this regulation is sufficiently vague that there is a high likelihood of a lawsuit against the school for permitting the passenger to be carried - a lawyer is likely to argue to a court that clause (c) was what was intended for this circumstance when the CAR was written - primarily because an aeroplane is a type of aircraft.

I would not worry about a $500 fine from TC, I would worry about the 10 million dollar lawsuit.  Since no precedent exists on this matter, it's really up in the air - and the current TC interpretation may not be enough to sway a court - especially when TC themselves have had multiple interpretations of this regulation between regions and even back and forth over time at HQ.

If you are an instructor or flight school, I strongly suggest you have a set of policies that err on the more conservative side of the interpretation and simply call them that - school policies.  If anyone questioned me as to why they are more restrictive than the CARs, I would highlight that from a risk assessment standpoint it's something we've decided not to do (just like we may have weather minimums that are more restrictive than the CARs for VFR).

Another common CAR that we see interpretation flip-flop on is 401.05(2b). When a flight instructor has not completed 5 night landings in the previous 6 months, may they take a student flying? Is the student a crew member when receiving dual instruction or are they a passenger? Does the POH state the crew requirement is only one pilot? Does this change if two non-current instructors want to go flying night circuits together?

Take a moment to sit down with your colleagues and go over the pros and cons of different scenarios for these, and any other concerning CARs you may have. If you can't find any benefits to outweigh realistic potential issues (or vice versa), it may be time to make policies based on those discussions, rather than simply saying "we've always done it this way".