Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 151, Number 51: Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I and VI – Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder)

December 23, 2017

Statutory authority

Aeronautics Act

Sponsoring department

Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues: Not all aircraft operating in Canada currently have a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) on board that can retain 2 hours of recorded information and that have a recorder independent power supply (RIPS) [i.e. a 10-minute backup power supply]. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) has stated in 2013 that a lack of recorded voice and other aural information can hinder aircraft safety investigations and delay or prevent the identification of aircraft or operational safety deficiencies.

Description: The proposed amendments would require a CVR and RIPS for an expanded number of aircraft except, for example, turbine-powered aeroplanes with a maximum certificated take-off weight less than 27 000 kg that were manufactured before January 1, 1987, and non-transport helicopters.

Cost-benefit statement: Indirect safety benefits could result from findings by the TSB following an accident if applicable aircraft are to have the proposed CVR and RIPS improvements. The resulting safety benefits could include aircraft, airport or operational improvements. The costs are estimated at $27.1 million present value (PV) over a 10-year period, with an annualized value of $3.8 million (approximately, based on a 7% discount rate, over 10 years, with 2017 as the base year). The estimated number of aircraft in Canada that could be impacted by the Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I and VI – Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder) [the proposed Regulations] is 996.

“One-for-One” Rule and small business lens: The “One-for-One” Rule applies since the proposed Regulations will require the operator to submit a certification request to Transport Canada whereby the installation of the CVR/RIPS equipment would be approved. The average annualized cost estimate is $1,693.

One hundred and thirty-four small businesses (based on the definition of “having fewer than 100 employees”), owning 313 of the 996 aircraft that could be impacted by the proposed Regulations, are impacted, with compliance costs estimated at $30,000 per aircraft. This cost estimate was submitted from a transport category aeroplane manufacturer and includes the administrative burden of submitting a certification request.

Domestic and international coordination and cooperation: Canada is a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) where minimum standards are agreed upon. With the proposed Regulations, Canada plans to harmonize its CVR requirements with the international minimum standards.

Background

In 1999, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) released its accident investigation report on the September 2, 1998, fatal crash of SwissAir Flight 111 (Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia). Of the shortcomings identified by the TSB investigation, one was the limited recording capacity of the aircraft's cockpit voice recorder (CVR). The CVR was able to record only 30 minutes of voices in the cockpit; therefore, it did not capture the time frame when the fire that caused the accident started. Another shortcoming identified was the lack of a dedicated recorder independent power supply (RIPS) to power the CVR and the cockpit area microphone in the event that normal aircraft power sources to the CVR were interrupted.

In response to this accident, ICAO made revisions in 2001 to Annex 6, Aeroplane Operations, Part I, International Commercial Air Transport — Aeroplanes, Part II, International General Aviation — Aeroplanes, and Part III, International Operations — Helicopters, requiring the installation of CVRs that can retain two hours of recorded information on aircraft certificated after 2002. Canada adopted these standards in 2003, through amendments to the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) Part V — Airworthiness Manual (AWM), and took a step further requiring that any aircraft manufactured in Canada after 2002 must have a CVR installed on board the aircraft that retains all information recorded during the last two hours of the aircraft's operation.

The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) adopted the ICAO standards by amending the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations in 2008, requiring the installation of CVRs that can retain 2 hours of recorded information on all aircraft manufactured after April 2010, as well as all turbine-powered aircraft manufactured before April 2010. The U.S. FAA also introduced a requirement for a 10-minute RIPS for all new aircraft designs (i.e. those manufactured after 2010). In 2013, ICAO requirements were extended to large commercial aeroplanes and commercial helicopters already in operation (i.e. including those manufactured before 2003), and added a requirement for a 10-minute RIPS that applied to new aircraft (i.e. aircraft manufactured after 2013).

These standards were intended to improve the quality and reliability of information recorded and to increase the potential for retaining important information needed during accident and incident investigations. For example, the requirement to have an independent backup power supply that provides 10 minutes of electrical power to operate both the CVR and cockpit-mounted area microphone would reduce the risk of losing crucial information in the event of an incident or accident involving a loss of power. However, these standards are not currently applicable to the in-service fleet unless they are made mandatory through these proposed regulatory amendments.

Issues

Canadian standards are not harmonized with international CVR standards — Canada has obligations to harmonize them as much as possible

In 2013, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) published minimum standards, which include the requirement to have a 2-hour CVR, for large commercial aeroplanes and commercial helicopters already in operation, as well as a RIPS for new type certificated aeroplanes, meant to provide a 10-minute backup power supply.

As only those aircraft manufactured after 2002 have a two-hour CVR, those aircraft manufactured before 2003, which constitute the remainder of the impacted Canadian fleet, are not meeting the 2013 ICAO standards.

The lack of voice recordings from the aircraft cockpit may impair accident investigations and safety findings

Past accidents in the United States have demonstrated that having a CVR that retains recorded information for 30 minutes on aeroplanes with a maximum certificated take-off weight (MCTOW) of 5 700 kg or more carrying passengers is not sufficient to efficiently and completely determine safety-related findings that may be learned from an accident. These accident investigation findings are an essential component of the aviation safety framework. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) has stated that a lack of recorded voice and other aural information can hinder aircraft safety investigations and delay or prevent the identification of aircraft or operational safety deficiencies.

Clarification required

Presently, multi-engined turbine-powered aircraft capable of carrying six passengers or more and certified to be operated by two pilots must have a CVR. However, some of these aircraft may be operated with one pilot and an auto-pilot system if authorized, as per the aircraft certification and operating certificate, thus no CVR is required. If the auto-pilot system is not functioning, an operator may operate these aircraft with two pilots. The single pilot authority was never meant to circumvent the intent that any time these aircraft are operated with two pilots, a CVR is required, whether the aircraft is certified for one- or two-pilot operations.

Objectives

The objectives of the proposed regulatory amendments are the following:

Description

The proposed amendments would enhance the time period of information captured by the CVR by

The proposed changes would be applicable to aircraft that are already carrying CVR, namely multi-engined turbine-powered aircraft configured for six or more passenger seats and for which two pilots are required by the aircraft type certificate or the requirements under which those aircraft are operated. These aircraft would require retrofit if not already compliant, that is as having updated CVR and a 10-minute RIPS. The operators impacted by the proposed amendments operate the aircraft summarized in the following table.

Size, Engine Type and
Number of Passengers		 Cut-in Date Current Requirement Proposed Requirement

Turbine-powered aeroplanes over 27 000 kg

Type certificated after September 30, 1969
and manufactured before January 1, 1987

30-minute CVR

2-hour CVR
10-minute RIPS

All aeroplanes over 5 700 kg

Manufactured after 1987 but before 2003

30-minute CVR

2-hour CVR
10-minute RIPS

All aeroplanes over 5 700 kg

Manufactured after 2002

2-hour CVR
no RIPS

no change
10-minute RIPS

Helicopters over 7 000 kg

Manufactured after 2002

2-hour CVR
no RIPS

no change
10-minute RIPS

In addition, the proposed amendments would clarify that a functioning CVR is required for a multi-engined turbine-powered aircraft that is configured for six or more passenger seats that is operated by more than one pilot. This category of aeroplane can be operated with one pilot if authorized as part of the certification process, provided an autopilot is functioning. In instances where the autopilot is not functioning, two pilots must operate the aeroplane, thus a CVR is required to capture the conversations in the cockpit. The proposed amendments would allow operations without a functioning CVR for a period of 45 days while the auto-pilot is being repaired. Past that date, if the operator wishes to continue operations with two pilots, a functioning CVR would be required.

The operators impacted by the proposed amendments would have four years from the publication date of these new requirements in the Canada Gazette, Part II, to comply. The four-year compliance time would allow operators to plan for the expense of updating the CVRs and the aircraft retrofit schedules.

This four-year compliance time necessitates that the proposed Regulations be written in a way that clearly distinguishes the current CVR requirements (sections 1, 2 and 4 of the proposed amendments) from those to be in force in four years (sections 3, 5 and 6 of the proposed amendments).

A new section 605.34, Cockpit Voice Recorder, would be introduced to separate the CVR requirements from the flight data recorder (FDR) requirements, which will remain unchanged. An FDR records aircraft performance data as well as aircraft systems data (including the control and actuator positions, engine information and time of day) throughout the flight, while the CVR records sound, namely the voices in the cockpit.

Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered

During a 2012 risk assessment conducted by Transport Canada, a non-regulatory option was considered due to the fact that the benefits of reduced accident investigation time are indirect and contingent upon the implementation of a TSB safety finding that may result from a longer CVR recording duration. The non-regulatory option included educational and promotional campaigns targeted to the aeronautical community in order to promote the installation of cockpit voice recorders. Essentially, industry would be asked to review their own aircraft and implement changes needed to comply with ICAO standards without direct Transport Canada involvement. Transport Canada could issue advisory material on ICAO requirements related to cockpit voice recorders. This non-regulatory risk control option was rejected due to the fact that it scored low in the following categories: promoting public confidence in the safety and security of Canada's transportation system; promoting economic efficiency, accessibility, and sustainability of the national transportation system; and promoting stakeholder satisfaction and the principles of shared commitment and partnerships with industry.

The ICAO recommendations were considered as a regulatory option that would increase the applicable aircraft population to include commercial aeroplanes and small helicopters.

The result of the 2012 risk assessment was that for in-service aircraft, Transport Canada should adopt the minimum standards for CVR requirements, but not the ICAO recommendations because the benefits of these were not clear and because of stakeholder feedback. Therefore, following the recommendations of the risk assessment, to align with ICAO minimum standards and not the ICAO recommendations, which are recommendations only, the original proposed aircraft applicability would need to be reduced. The proposed amendments would not apply to turbine-engine aeroplanes with a maximum certificated take-off weight between 5 700 kg and 27 000 kg, manufactured before January 1, 1987, and the existing fleet of non-transport helicopters.

The proposed regulatory amendments would apply to Canadian commuter and transport category aeroplanes, transport category helicopters of 7 000 kg (15 400 pounds) or more, and multi-engined turbine-powered aeroplanes configured for six or more passenger seats and for which more than one pilot is required by the aeroplane type certificate or by the subpart of the CARs under which the aeroplane is operated. This last category includes some normal category airplanes because of the seating capacity. Normal category aeroplanes include a passenger seating capacity of nine or less.

Benefits and costs

Transport Canada has assessed the benefits of these proposed amendments as being qualitative. Indirect safety benefits could result from findings by the TSB following an accident involving an aircraft equipped with an updated CVR that may not have been found otherwise. The resulting indirect safety benefits could lead to aircraft, airport and/or operational improvements.

Aircraft installers in Canada would benefit from increased business as a result of the applicable aircraft needing new equipment.

Cost savings may be possible to the TSB if an accident investigation were to take less time due to the proposed CVR and RIPS improvements, and if fewer accidents occur as the result of safety improvements made possible by the new requirements.

International trade (exports and imports) of used aircraft could be facilitated since the regulations would be harmonized with those of the United States.

Costs

The costs are estimated at $27.1 million in present value (PV) over a 10-year period, with an annualized value of $3.8 million (approximately, based on a 7% discount rate over 10 years). These costs are based on the implementation for 996 affected aircraft over a 4-year period (249 per year over the 4 years). Therefore, the total industry costs in the first 4 years of implementation would be approximately $7.5 million per year.

It is estimated that the cost for a CVR installation (cost of unit and installation fees) is $30,000 per aircraft. It is assumed that the aircraft owners/operators will install the CVRs that have integrated RIPS. These cost estimates were generated from feedback of one large Canadian manufacturer that is also an air operator. Since both Canada and the United States adopted updated CVR standards for new aeroplane designs in 2003, approximately 85% of the 1 526 or so large aeroplanes in operation in Canada already have updated CVRs. The estimate per aircraft includes the administrative burden of submitting the certification request to Transport Canada.

The aircraft population, as obtained from Transport Canada's aircraft database, consists of 941 aeroplanes manufactured after 1986 with an MCTOW of over 5 700 kg (12 500 pounds), 16 aeroplanes manufactured before 1987 with an MCTOW of 27 000 kg or more, and 39 helicopters over 7 000 kg (15 432 pounds).

Size, Engine Type and Number of Passengers Cut-in Date Current Requirement Proposed Requirement Estimated Population of Aircraft Impacted
Turbine-powered aeroplanes over 27 000 kg Type certificated after September 30, 1969, and manufactured before January 1, 1987 30-minute CVR 2-hour CVR 16
All aeroplanes over 5 700 kg Manufactured after 1987 but before 2003 30-minute CVR 2-hour CVR 1 526 minus 85% that are already compliant and those manufactured after 2002 = 941
All aeroplanes over 5 700 kg Manufactured after 2002 2-hour CVR
No RIPS		 No change
10-minute RIPS
Helicopters over
7 000 kg		 Manufactured after 2002 2-hour CVR
No RIPS		 No change
10-minute RIPS		  
Cost-benefit statement (see note 1)
  Base Year:
2017		 2018
to 2020		 2022–2026 Total
(PV)		 Annualized Average
A. Quantified impacts (2016 price level / constant dollars)
Benefits By stakeholder N/A — N/A N/A N/A
Costs Aircraft operators (see note 2) $7.5 million $7.5 million 0 $27.1 million $3.8 million
Net benefits: N/A    
B. Qualitative impacts
A positive qualitative impact is the increased ability of the TSB to make safety findings.

“One-for-One” Rule

The “One-for-One” Rule applies since the proposed Regulations will require the operator to submit a certification request to Transport Canada for approval of the installation of the CVR/RIPS equipment. The certification request estimate can be calculated as one hour of a manager's time per aircraft type operated by the business since the certification would be approved for all of the aircraft of the same type within the individual operator's fleet. It is assumed that four requests would be made by 26 large businesses and two requests would be made by each of the 134 small businesses that have been identified as such. The administrative burden is estimated with a present value over 10 years and a 7% discount rate, as $16,673. The average annualized administrative costs are $13 per small business and $22 per large business, or a total of $1,693.

Small business lens

Transport Canada estimates that the proposed Regulations may impact 134 air operators that could be considered small businesses in Canada, out of the estimated 160 businesses to which the proposed regulatory amendments could apply. A small business is defined as having gross annual revenues of between $30,000 and $5 million and fewer than 100 employees.

Transport Canada identified one third of the possible small businesses by accessing publicly available information (e.g. information online). The remaining two thirds of the possible small businesses were identified through Transport Canada's knowledge of the industry. Most of the companies that are considered large as per the small business lens definition are CAR Subpart 705 — Airline Operations operators or companies that are subsidiaries of a Canadian parent company or international company. In addition, many of these offer various services, including maintenance and hospitality.

The 134 estimated small businesses operate 313 out of the 996 estimated aircraft that would require a new CVR. The small businesses represent approximately 79% of the businesses impacted by these proposed changes and are shouldering 31% of the costs. The average annualized cost per operator is $9,000 over 10 years, assuming that each operator has an average of 2 or 3 aircraft each and that the proposed regulatory amendments come into force within 4 years of final publication.

A 6-year implementation time frame has been considered by Transport Canada in order to provide economic relief for those small businesses. The results of this analysis are shown below. The 6-year time frame was considered based on the fact that some aircraft have a comprehensive maintenance check every 6 years, at which time the CVR could be installed. If the proposed regulatory amendments were to come into effect within 6 years of final publication, the average annualized cost per operator would be $6,000 over 10 years, assuming that each operator has an average of 2 or 3 aircraft each and that compliance is met within 6 years of the publication of the amendment. However, Transport Canada believes that a 4-year implementation time frame is acceptable, given that other maintenance work would likely be done on the applicable aircraft within 4 years and a CVR could be installed at that time, and that the Federal Aviation Administration has already set a precedent of 4 years. Moreover, the cost of a CVR and installation is a fraction of the cost of maintaining the aircraft over its lifecycle. Depending on the model of aircraft, some engine overhauls can cost $250,000 to $2.1 million.

Transport Canada did not retain a six-year implementation time frame as a flexible option since ICAO and the international aviation community have been looking at piecemeal changes since 2001 (i.e. for new aircraft designs). A six-year delay from a possible Canada Gazette, Part II, publication date would represent an unacceptable time delay for implementation given the relatively small cost relief the flexibility option would lend.

Regulatory flexibility analysis statement

The initial option has an implementation (compliance) time frame of four years whereas the flexibility option has an implementation (compliance) time frame of six years.

  Initial Option Flexible Option
Short description All businesses have the same compliance time. Small businesses have two extra years to comply.
Number of small businesses impacted 134 134
  Annualized average ($) Present value ($) Annualized average ($) Present value ($)
Compliance costs (itemize if appropriate) 1.2 million 8.5 million 0.8 million 5.7 million
Administrative costs (itemize if appropriate) N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total costs (all small businesses) 1.2 million 8.5 million 0.8 million 5.7 million
Total cost per small business 9,000 63,000 6,000 42,000
Risk considerations The distribution of aircraft requiring the proposed CVR and RIPS among small businesses is not even. The distribution of aircraft requiring the proposed CVR and RIPS among small businesses is not even.

Notes:

Consultation

Members of the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC) were consulted on the proposed regulatory amendments through a Notice of Proposed Amendment in the fall of 2011. In light of the feedback received from the CARAC members, the risk assessment was conducted early in 2012. The focus of the risk assessment was to determine the scope and thus the population of aircraft subject to the proposed requirements taking into consideration the fact that the ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) include a standard that requires a two-hour CVR for existing large commercial aeroplanes and helicopters and a recommended practice to include a broader population of commercial aeroplanes and small helicopters.

There was low opposition during the 2012 risk assessment meetings from the stakeholders in attendance which included representatives from Transport Canada, the Air Canada Pilots Association, the Helicopter Association of Canada (HAC), the Association québécoise du transport aérien, the Air Transport Association of Canada, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada and the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada. However, the HAC did express a concern with the economic burden of CVR enhancements on non-transport helicopters and stated that the proposed risk mitigating features such as longer CVR recording times are unnecessary due to the shorter flying times for non-transport helicopters. These comments were taken into consideration, and the proposed regulatory amendments do not include non-transport helicopters.

The Northern Air Transport Association (NATA) expressed a concern regarding the retrofit time for the smaller operators and requested that retrofit requirements be phased in by operating type. Transport Canada is of the view that to deviate from the four-year time frame the FAA has already codified is not warranted due to the now readily available CVR installation designs and parts. No further comments were made by NATA.

Transport Canada has informed CARAC members on the progress of these proposed amendments at the CARAC plenary meeting, held on December 13, 2016. Furthermore, the Department has used any opportunity, when meeting with organizations representing the operators impacted by these proposed amendments, to confirm the status of this initiative, thus offering an additional opportunity for stakeholders to provide input on this proposal.

Rationale

The costs of $30,000 per CVR/RIPS unit and installation may be an overestimate for some types of aeroplanes. Bombardier has estimated that for their jet aeroplanes, the CVR/RIPS installations costs may vary between $26,500 and $35,000. These estimates do not take into account the availability of combined CVR/RIPS units. The CVR/RIPS installation costs of smaller six-passenger aeroplanes for instance are assumed to be less than for larger jets.

Regulatory cooperation

By mandating the upgrading of CVRs and RIPS to those remaining non-compliant aircraft, Canada would meet its obligations as a member of ICAO. The proposed Regulations would also minimize regulatory differences by harmonizing the CARs with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards in Title 14 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations. The proposed Regulations go beyond the current requirements from the FAA by requiring retrofitting of RIPS four years after the publication of these proposed amendments in the Canada Gazette, Part II. This proposal takes into account the current state of the art of the industry that is dominated by combined CVR-RIPS units.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

The proposed implementation time frame is four years from the publication of the proposed Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part II. Oversight will be incorporated into the existing surveillance plans. These amendments would be enforced through the assessment of monetary penalties imposed under sections 7.6 to 8.2 of the Aeronautics Act, and carrying a maximum fine of $3,000 for individuals and $15,000 for corporations; through suspension or cancellation of a Canadian aviation document; or through judicial action introduced by way of summary conviction, as per section 7.3 of the Aeronautics Act.

Contact

Chief
Regulatory Affairs (AARBH)
Civil Aviation
Safety and Security Group
Transport Canada
Place de Ville, Tower C
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Telephone: 613-993-7284 or 1-800-305-2059
Fax: 613-990-1198
Website: www.tc.gc.ca

Appendix A: Small Business Lens Checklist

1. Name of the sponsoring regulatory organization:

Department of Transport

2. Title of the regulatory proposal:

Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I and VI – Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder)

3. Is the checklist submitted with a RIAS for the Canada Gazette, Part I or Part II?

A. Small business regulatory design
I Communication and transparency Yes No N/A
1. Are the proposed Regulations or requirements easily understandable in everyday language? ☑ ☐ ☐
2. Is there a clear connection between the requirements and the purpose (or intent) of the proposed Regulations? ☑ ☐ ☐
3. Will there be an implementation plan that includes communications and compliance promotion activities, that informs small business of a regulatory change and guides them on how to comply with it (e.g. information sessions, sample assessments, toolkits, websites)? ☑ ☐ ☐
Communication is made through Transport Canada's CARAC process in which industry associations are informed who in turn inform their members.
4. If new forms, reports or processes are introduced, are they consistent in appearance and format with other relevant government forms, reports or processes? ☐ ☐ ☑
No new forms are being introduced. The impacted businesses are familiar with the process leading to the issurance of supplemental type certificate (STC).
II Simplification and streamlining Yes No N/A
1. Will streamlined processes be put in place (e.g. through BizPaL, Canada Border Services Agency single window) to collect information from small businesses where possible? ☐ ☐ ☑
No information will be collected; the compliance check will be made through TC's regular surveillance program.
2. Have opportunities to align with other obligations imposed on business by federal, provincial, municipal or international or multinational regulatory bodies been assessed? ☑ ☐ ☐
3. Has the impact of the proposed Regulations on international or interprovincial trade been assessed? ☑ ☐ ☐
The sale of used aircraft internationally would not depend on whether or not it is equipped with an updated CVR; however, with the ICAO harmonization, it could be stated that trade would not be impeded.
4. If the data or information, other than personal information, required to comply with the proposed Regulations is already collected by another department or jurisdiction, will this information be obtained from that department or jurisdiction instead of requesting the same information from small businesses or other stakeholders? (The collection, retention, use, disclosure and disposal of personal information are all subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act. Any questions with respect to compliance with the Privacy Act should be referred to the department's or agency's ATIP office or legal services unit.) ☐ ☐ ☑
No other department collects aircraft equipment compliance information.
5. Will forms be pre-populated with information or data already available to the department to reduce the time and cost necessary to complete them? (Example: When a business completes an online application for a licence, upon entering an identifier or a name, the system pre-populates the application with the applicant's personal particulars such as contact information, date, etc. when that information is already available to the department.) ☐ ☐ ☑
No new forms are being introduced. The impacted businesses are familiar with the STC process.
6. Will electronic reporting and data collection be used, including electronic validation and confirmation of receipt of reports where appropriate? ☐ ☐ ☑
The existing STC process is not changing.
7. Will reporting, if required by the proposed Regulations, be aligned with generally used business processes or international standards if possible? ☐ ☐ ☑
No reporting is required by the proposed Regulations. Compliance will be monitored as per TC's existing surveillance programs.
8. If additional forms are required, can they be streamlined with existing forms that must be completed for other government information requirements? ☐ ☐ ☑
No new forms are being introduced.
III Implementation, compliance and service standards Yes No N/A
1. Has consideration been given to small businesses in remote areas, with special consideration to those that do not have access to high-speed (broadband) Internet? ☐ ☐ ☑
The STC process is not changing. Northern airlines have raised issues as per the RIAS. Remote operators have maintenance hangars where the STC process can take place or the aircraft is moved to where their maintenance normally takes place. In terms of communication regarding the proposed Regulations, they are well served by NATA.
2. If regulatory authorizations (e.g. licences, permits or certifications) are introduced, will service standards addressing timeliness of decision making be developed that are inclusive of complaints about poor service? ☐ ☐ ☑
New regulatory authorizations are not being introduced.
3. Is there a clearly identified contact point or help desk for small businesses and other stakeholders? ☑ ☐ ☐
The contact point for small businesses are TC regional offices.
B. Regulatory flexibility analysis and reverse onus
IV Regulatory flexibility analysis Yes No N/A
1. Does the RIAS identify at least one flexible option that has lower compliance or administrative costs for small businesses in the small business lens section? Examples of flexible options to minimize costs are as follows:
  • Longer time periods to comply with the requirements, longer transition periods or temporary exemptions;
  • Performance-based standards;
  • Partial or complete exemptions from compliance, especially for firms that have good track records (legal advice should be sought when considering such an option);
  • Reduced compliance costs;
  • Reduced fees or other charges or penalties;
  • Use of market incentives;
  • A range of options to comply with requirements, including lower-cost options;
  • Simplified and less frequent reporting obligations and inspections; and
  • Licences granted on a permanent basis or renewed less frequently.
 ☑ ☐ ☐
See the "Small business lens" section of the RIAS.
2. Does the RIAS include, as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Statement, quantified and monetized compliance and administrative costs for small businesses associated with the initial option assessed, as well as the flexible, lower-cost option? ☑ ☐ ☐
3. Does the RIAS include, as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Statement, a consideration of the risks associated with the flexible option? (Minimizing administrative or compliance costs for small business cannot be at the expense of greater health, security or safety or create environmental risks for Canadians.) ☑ ☐ ☐
4. Does the RIAS include a summary of feedback provided by small business during consultations? ☐ ☐ ☑
No air operator identified themselves as small business due to financial privacy or because they do not know what constitutes a small business per Treasury Board Secretariat terms. The small businesses are however represented by NATA and the HAC, which provide feedback.
V Reverse onus Yes No N/A
1. If the recommended option is not the lower-cost option for small business in terms of administrative or compliance costs, is a reasonable justification provided in the RIAS? ☑ ☐ ☐

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 4.9 (see footnote a) and paragraphs 7.6(1)(a) (see footnote b) and (b) (see footnote c) of the Aeronautics Act (see footnote d), proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I and VI – Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder).

Interested persons may make written representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to the Chief, Regulatory Affairs (AARBH), Civil Aviation, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport, Place de Ville, Tower C, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 (general inquiries — tel.: 613-993-7284 or 1-800-305-2059; fax: 613-990-1198; Internet address: http://www.tc.gc.ca).

Ottawa, December 14, 2017

Jurica Čapkun
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I and VI – Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder)

Amendments

1 Subsection 101.01(1) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (see footnote 1) is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

CVR or cockpit voice recorder means a system that uses a combination of microphones and other analog and digital devices to record and retain the aural environment of a cockpit as well as communications to, from and between flight crew members; (CVR ou enregistreur de la parole dans le poste de pilotage)

FDR or flight data recorder means a digital device that uses a combination of data providers to collect and record parameters that reflect the state and performance of an aircraft; (FDR ou enregistreur de données de vol)

2 The references “Subsection 605.33(1)” to “Subsection 605.34(1)” in column I of Subpart 5 of Part VI of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations and the corresponding amounts in column II are replaced by the following:

Column I

Designated Provision

Column II

Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)

Individual Corporation
Subsection 605.33(2) 3,000 15,000
Subsection 605.33(3) 3,000 15,000
Section 605.33.1 1,000 5,000
Subsection 605.34(2) 3,000 15,000
Subsection 605.34(3) 3,000 15,000
Subsection 605.34(5) 3,000 15,000
Subsection 605.34.1(1) 1,000 5,000
Section 605.34.2 1,000 5,000
3 Subpart 5 of Part VI of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after the reference “Section 605.34.2:

Column I

Designated Provision

Column II

Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)

Individual Corporation
Section 605.34.3 1,000 5,000

4 The heading before section 605.33 and sections 605.33 and 605.34 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

Flight Data Recorder

605.33 (1) This section applies in respect of the following multi-engined turbine-powered aircraft:

(2) Subject to subsection (4), no person shall dispatch or conduct a take-off in an aircraft unless it is equipped with a flight data recorder that conforms to section 551.100 of Chapter 551 of the Airworthiness Manual and section 625.33 of Standard 625 — Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance of the General Operating and Flight Rules Standards.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), no person shall operate an aircraft unless the flight data recorder is operated continuously from the start of the take-off until the completion of the landing.

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply in respect of an aircraft without a serviceable flight data recorder if

Underwater Locating Device for Flight Data Recorder

605.33.1 No person shall operate an aircraft that is required to be equipped with a flight data recorder under section 605.33 unless the aircraft is equipped with a serviceable underwater locating device for its flight data recorder that conforms to section 551.100 of Chapter 551 of the Airworthiness Manual.

Cockpit Voice Recorder

605.34 (1) This section applies in respect of a multi-engined turbine-powered aircraft that is configured for six or more passenger seats and for which two pilots are required by the aircraft type certificate or by the subpart under which the aircraft is operated.

(2) Subject to subsection (4), no person shall dispatch or conduct a take-off in an aircraft unless the aircraft is equipped with a cockpit voice recorder that conforms to section 551.101 of Chapter 551 of the Airworthiness Manual and section 625.34 of Standard 625 — Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance of the General Operating and Flight Rules Standards.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), no person shall operate an aircraft unless the cockpit voice recorder is operated continuously from the time at which electrical power is first provided to the recorder before the flight to the time at which electrical power is removed from the recorder after the flight.

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply in respect of an aircraft without a serviceable cockpit voice recorder if

(5) No person shall erase any communications that have been recorded by a cockpit voice recorder.

Underwater Locating Device for Cockpit Voice Recorder

605.34.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no person shall operate an aircraft in respect of which a type certificate has been issued authorizing the transport of more than 30 passengers unless the aircraft is equipped with a serviceable underwater locating device for its cockpit voice recorder that conforms to section 551.101 of Chapter 551 of the Airworthiness Manual and subsection 625.34(5) of Standard 625 — Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance of the General Operating and Flight Rules Standards.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of an aircraft that is equipped with a flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder that are installed adjacent to each other and are not likely to be separated during a crash impact.

Use of Microphones

605.34.2 If an aircraft is equipped to continuously record audio signals by means of a boom microphone or mask microphones, each flight crew member shall use the boom microphone or his or her mask microphone while the aircraft is operated below 10,000 feet ASL.

5 (1) Subsection 605.34(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

605.34 (1) This section applies in respect of the following aircraft:

(2) Paragraph 605.34(4)(c) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

6 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 605.34.2:

Data Link Communications

605.34.3 If an aircraft is equipped with a cockpit voice recorder that records data link communications, no person shall dispatch or conduct a take-off in the aircraft unless the cockpit voice recorder conforms to section 625.34 of Standard 625 — Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance of the General Operating and Flight Rules Standards.

7 Subsections 605.35(2) and (3) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of an aircraft without a serviceable transponder and automatic pressure-altitude reporting equipment if

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of an aircraft without a serviceable transponder and automatic pressure-altitude reporting equipment if

8 Subsection 605.36(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of an aeroplane without a serviceable altitude alerting system or device if

Coming into Force

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

(2) Sections 3, 5 and 6 come into force on the fourth anniversary of the day on which these Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

[51-1-o]