Vol. 149, No. 12 — June 17, 2015

Registration

SOR/2015-127 June 5, 2015

AERONAUTICS ACT

Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I, VI and VII — Flight Attendants and Emergency Evacuation)

P.C. 2015-754 June 4, 2015

His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, 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), makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I, VI and VII – Flight Attendants and Emergency Evacuation).

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I, VI AND VII — FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND EMERGENCY EVACUATION)

AMENDMENTS

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

“extended over-water operation” means

2. The reference “Subsection 604.81(1)” in column I of Subpart 4 of Part VI of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations and the corresponding amounts in column II are repealed.

3. Subpart 4 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 604.208”:

Column I

Designated Provision		 Column II

Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
  Individual Corporation
Subsection 604.221(1) 3,000 15,000
Section 604.222 1,000 5,000
Subsection 604.223(1) 1,000 5,000
Subsection 604.223(2) 1,000 5,000
Subsection 604.223(3) 1,000 5,000
Subsection 604.224(1) 1,000 5,000
Subsection 604.224(3) 1,000 5,000
Subsection 604.240(1) 1,000 5,000
Paragraph 604.240(5)(a) 1,000 5,000
Paragraph 604.240(5)(b) 1,000 5,000
Section 604.241 1,000 5,000
Section 604.242 1,000 5,000

4. Subpart 4 of Part VI of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after the reference “Subsection 604.224(3)”:

Column I

Designated Provision		 Column II

Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
  Individual Corporation
Subsection 604.225(1) 1,000 5,000
Subsection 604.226(1) 1,000 5,000
Subsection 604.226(3) 1,000 5,000

5. Subpart 4 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 604.242”:

Column I

Designated Provision		 Column II

Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
  Individual Corporation
Section 604.243 1,000 5,000

6. The reference “Subsection 705.75(1)” in column I of Subpart 5 of Part VII 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
Section 705.75 3,000 15,000

7. The references “Subsection 705.104(1)” to “Section 705.105” in column I of Subpart 5 of Part VII of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations and the corresponding amounts in column II are repealed.

8. Subpart 5 of Part VII of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after the reference “Subsection 705.174(5)”:

Column I

Designated Provision		 Column II

Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
  Individual Corporation
Subsection 705.201(1) 3,000 15,000
Subsection 705.201(4) 1,000 5,000
Subsection 705.202(1) 1,000 5,000
Section 705.203 1,000 5,000
Subsection 705.204(1) 1,000 5,000
Subsection 705.204(2) 1,000 5,000
Subsection 705.204(3) 1,000 5,000
Subsection 705.204(4) 1,000 5,000
Subsection 705.205(1) 1,000 5,000
Subsection 705.220(1) 1,000 5,000
Subsection 705.220(2) 1,000 5,000
Subsection 705.220(3) 1,000 5,000
Subsection 705.220(4) 1,000 5,000
Subsection 705.221(2) 1,000 5,000
Subsection 705.222(1) 1,000 5,000
Paragraph 705.222(5)(a) 1,000 5,000
Paragraph 705.222(5)(b) 1,000 5,000
Subsection 705.223(1) 1,000 5,000
Subsection 705.224(1) 3,000 15,000
Subsection 705.224(2) 3,000 15,000
Section 705.225 1,000 5,000
Section 705.226 1,000 5,000

9. Subpart 5 of Part VII of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after the reference “Subsection 705.205(1)”:

Column I

Designated Provision		 Column II

Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
  Individual Corporation
Section 705.206 1,000 5,000
Subsection 705.207(1) 1,000 5,000

10. Subpart 5 of Part VII of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after the reference “Section 705.226”:


Column I

Designated Provision		 Column II

Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
  Individual Corporation
Section 705.227 1,000 5,000

11. Section 604.81 of the Regulations and the heading “Flight Attendants” before it are replaced by the following:

[604.81 reserved]

12. The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 604.208:

[604.209 to 604.219 reserved]

Division XIII — Flight Attendants and Emergency Evacuation
Interpretation

604.220 (1) For the purposes of this Division and subject to subsection (2), “model” means “aircraft master series” as described in section 3.7 of version 1.3 of the document entitled International Standard for Aircraft Make, Model, and Series Groupings, dated October 2012 and published by the Common Taxonomy Team of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST).

(2) If no aircraft master series is assigned to an aeroplane, “model” in respect of that aeroplane means “aircraft model” as described in section 3.6 of version 1.3 of the document entitled International Standard for Aircraft Make, Model, and Series Groupings, dated October 2012 and published by the Common Taxonomy Team of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST).

Minimum Number of Flight Attendants

604.221 (1) No person shall conduct a take-off in an aeroplane that is operated by a private operator and is carrying more than 12 passengers unless the take-off is conducted with the minimum number of flight attendants required on each deck.

(2) Subject to subsections (3) to (5), the minimum number of flight attendants required on each deck is one flight attendant for each unit of 50 passengers or for each portion of such a unit.

(3) No flight attendants are required if

(4) If a private operator has carried out a successful demonstration of its emergency evacuation procedures for a model of aeroplane using more flight attendants than would have been required in accordance with the ratio set out in subsection (2), the minimum number of flight attendants required on each deck of an aeroplane of that model that is operated by the private operator is the number of flight attendants used in the demonstration.

(5) If the emergency evacuation demonstration required for the certification of a model of aeroplane was carried out using more flight attendants than would have been required in accordance with the ratio set out in subsection (2), the minimum number of flight attendants required on each deck of an aeroplane of that model is the number of flight attendants required in accordance with the ratio set out in subsection (2) plus an additional number of flight attendants that is equal to the difference between

(6) If there is a conflict between subsection (3) and subsection (4) or (5), subsection (3) prevails to the extent of the conflict.

Emergency Features

604.222 No private operator shall operate an aeroplane that is configured for 20 or more passenger seats unless the features that facilitate emergency evacuations meet the requirements set out in section 624.222 of Standard 624 — Emergency Features of the General Operating and Flight Rules Standards.

Demonstration of Emergency Evacuation Procedures

604.223 (1) A private operator who decides to introduce a model of aeroplane into its fleet for the purpose of carrying passengers shall carry out a successful demonstration of its emergency evacuation procedures for that model of aeroplane before operating an aeroplane of that model to carry passengers.

(2) If a private operator decides to introduce an aeroplane into its fleet and there is a difference in any of the following items between that aeroplane and other aeroplanes of the same model that are already in the fleet, the private operator shall treat the aeroplane as if it were a different model of aeroplane and carry out a successful demonstration of its emergency evacuation procedures for that model before operating the aeroplane to carry passengers:

(3) A private operator who decides to change any of the following items in respect of an aeroplane shall carry out a successful demonstration of its emergency evacuation procedures for the model of that aeroplane, as changed, before operating the aeroplane to carry passengers:

(4) Subsections (1) to (3) do not apply in respect of a model of aeroplane that is configured to carry fewer than 44 passengers.

Carrying Out a Demonstration of Emergency Evacuation Procedures

604.224 (1) A private operator who carries out a demonstration of its emergency evacuation procedures for a model of aeroplane shall

(2) The demonstration is successful if the flight attendants can, within 15 seconds after the transition from the private operator’s normal procedures to its emergency procedures,

(3) The private operator shall record the demonstration using time-encoded video and keep the recording for at least five years after the day on which the demonstration is carried out.

[604.225 to 604.239 reserved]

Embarking and Disembarking of Passengers

604.240 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a private operator who operates an aeroplane to carry passengers shall ensure that all flight attendants assigned to a flight using that aeroplane are on board during passenger embarkation and disembarkation.

(2) In the case of a flight to which more than one flight attendant is assigned, the private operator may reduce the number of flight attendants by one during passenger embarkation if

(3) In the case of a flight to which more than one flight attendant is assigned, the private operator may reduce the number of flight attendants during passenger disembarkation if

(4) Paragraphs (2)(b) and (3)(a) do not apply in respect of an engine on a propeller-driven aeroplane if

(5) The private operator shall ensure that, during passenger embarkation and disembarkation,

Emergency Evacuation — Before and During Surface Movement

604.241 A private operator shall, for each aeroplane in its fleet that is configured to carry 20 or more passengers, have procedures to ensure that

Single-aisle Aeroplane

604.242 Despite section 605.09, no person shall conduct a take-off in a single-aisle aeroplane that is carrying passengers unless all emergency exits and escape slides are operative.

[604.243 reserved]

13. The reference “[604.225 to 604.239 reserved]” after section 604.224 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Extended Over-water Operations

604.225 (1) If a private operator decides to operate an aeroplane to carry passengers in extended over-water operations and the aeroplane is required to have survival equipment under section 602.63, the private operator shall carry out a demonstration of its ditching emergency evacuation procedures for the model of that aeroplane before starting the extended over-water operations.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of an aeroplane that is configured for fewer than 20 passenger seats.

Carrying Out a Demonstration of Emergency Evacuation Procedures — Ditching

604.226 (1) A private operator who carries out a demonstration of its ditching emergency evacuation procedures for a model of aeroplane shall

(2) A life-sized mock-up of a model of aeroplane or a floating device must

(3) The private operator shall record the demonstration using time-encoded video and keep the recording for at least five years after the day on which the demonstration is carried out.

[604.227 to 604.239 reserved]

14. The reference “[604.243 reserved]” after section 604.242 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Standardization

604.243 No private operator shall operate an aeroplane that is configured to carry 20 or more passengers unless the emergency equipment, the stowage locations for emergency equipment and the emergency procedures are standardized for all aeroplanes in the private operator’s fleet that are configured to carry 20 or more passengers.

15. The portion of subsection 705.16(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

705.16 (1) Sections 705.40, 705.43, 705.75, 705.77 to 705.79, 705.139 and 705.201 do not apply if nine or fewer persons are on board an aircraft and each person is

16. Section 705.75 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

705.75 No person shall operate an aircraft unless each pilot seat and the seat for each flight attendant required under section 705.201 is equipped with a safety belt that includes dual upper torso straps with a single-point release.

17. Section 705.97 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

705.97 Each flight attendant required under section 705.201 shall have a flashlight readily available for use.

18. The heading before section 705.104 and sections 705.104 and 705.105 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

[705.104 and 705.105 reserved]

19. Paragraph 705.109(1)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

20. The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 705.175:

[705.176 to 705.199 reserved]

Division XII — Flight Attendants and Emergency Evacuation
Interpretation

705.200 (1) For the purposes of this Division and subject to subsection (2), “model” means “aircraft master series” as described in section 3.7 of version 1.3 of the document entitled International Standard for Aircraft Make, Model, and Series Groupings, dated October 2012 and published by the Common Taxonomy Team of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST).

(2) If no aircraft master series is assigned to an aeroplane, “model” in respect of that aeroplane means “aircraft model” as described in section 3.6 of version 1.3 of the document entitled International Standard for Aircraft Make, Model, and Series Groupings, dated October 2012 and published by the Common Taxonomy Team of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST).

Minimum Number of Flight Attendants

705.201 (1) No air operator shall operate an aeroplane to carry passengers unless the air operator does so with the minimum number of flight attendants required on each deck.

(2) Subject to subsections (4) to (7), the minimum number of flight attendants required on each deck of an aeroplane is determined in accordance with one of the following ratios that is selected by the air operator in respect of the model of that aeroplane:

(3) Persons referred to in paragraphs 705.27(3)(c) to (e) who are admitted to the flight deck are not counted as passengers for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a).

(4) An air operator who has selected, in respect of a model of aeroplane, the ratio set out in paragraph (2)(b) shall not operate an aeroplane of that model with only one flight attendant unless

(5) If an air operator has selected, in respect of a model of aeroplane, the ratio set out in paragraph (2)(a), but has carried out a successful demonstration of its emergency evacuation procedures for that model using more flight attendants than would have been required in accordance with that ratio, the minimum number of flight attendants required on each deck of an aeroplane of that model that is operated by the air operator is the number of flight attendants used in the demonstration.

(6) If an air operator has selected, in respect of a model of aeroplane, the ratio set out in paragraph (2)(b), but has carried out a successful demonstration of its emergency evacuation procedures for that model using more flight attendants than would have been required in accordance with that ratio, the minimum number of flight attendants required on each deck of an aeroplane of that model that is operated by the air operator is the number of flight attendants used in the demonstration.

(7) If the emergency evacuation demonstration required for the certification of a model of aeroplane was carried out using more flight attendants than would have been required in accordance with the ratio set out in paragraph (2)(b) and, after the demonstration, an aeroplane of that model is reconfigured for fewer passenger seats, the minimum number of flight attendants required on each deck of the reconfigured aeroplane is the number of flight attendants required in accordance with the ratio set out in paragraph (2)(b) plus an additional number of flight attendants that is equal to the difference between

Notice

705.202 (1) An air operator who decides, in respect of a model of aeroplane, to change the ratio that it has selected for the purposes of subsection 705.201(2) shall not implement this change unless

(2) The Minister shall acknowledge receipt of the notice not later than one working day after receiving it.

Emergency Features

705.203 If an air operator has selected, in respect of a model of aeroplane, the ratio set out in paragraph 705.201(2)(b), the air operator shall not operate an aeroplane of that model unless

Demonstration of Emergency Evacuation Procedures

705.204 (1) An air operator who decides to introduce a model of aeroplane into its fleet for the purpose of carrying passengers shall carry out a successful demonstration of its emergency evacuation procedures for that model of aeroplane before operating an aeroplane of that model to carry passengers.

(2) If an air operator decides to introduce an aeroplane into its fleet and there is a difference in any of the following items between that aeroplane and other aeroplanes of the same model that are already in the fleet, the air operator shall treat the aeroplane as if it were a different model of aeroplane and carry out a successful demonstration of its emergency evacuation procedures for that model before operating the aeroplane to carry passengers:

(3) An air operator who decides to change any of the following items in respect of an aeroplane shall carry out a successful demonstration of its emergency evacuation procedures for the model of that aeroplane, as changed, before operating the aeroplane to carry passengers:

(4) If an air operator who has selected the ratio set out in paragraph 705.201(2)(b) in respect of a model of aeroplane decides to reconfigure an aeroplane of that model by adding or removing passenger seats, and if the reconfiguration will result in a change in the minimum number of flight attendants required on each deck, the air operator shall carry out a successful demonstration of its emergency evacuation procedures for the reconfigured model of that aeroplane before operating the reconfigured aeroplane to carry passengers.

(5) Subsections (1) to (4) do not apply in respect of a model of aeroplane that is configured to carry fewer than 44 passengers.

Carrying Out a Demonstration of Emergency Evacuation Procedures

705.205 (1) An air operator who carries out a demonstration of its emergency evacuation procedures for a model of aeroplane shall

(2) The demonstration is successful if the flight attendants can, within 15 seconds after the transition from the air operator’s normal procedures to its emergency procedures,

[705.206 to 705.219 reserved]

In-charge Flight Attendant

705.220 (1) An air operator who operates an aeroplane with more than one flight attendant shall designate an in-charge flight attendant for each flight and keep a record of that designation for at least 90 days after the day on which the flight is completed.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), an air operator shall not allow an individual to act as an in-charge flight attendant and no individual shall act as an in-charge flight attendant unless the individual has successfully completed in-charge training as part of the air operator’s training program.

(3) An air operator shall set out procedures in its company operations manual for the selection of an acting in-charge flight attendant if the designated in-charge flight attendant becomes incapacitated after take-off.

(4) In the case of a flight with scheduled stops, an air operator shall replace an acting in-charge flight attendant with a new designated in-charge flight attendant at the first scheduled stop where the replacement can be made.

Incapacitated Flight Attendant

705.221 (1) An air operator who has selected, in respect of a model of aeroplane, the ratio set out in paragraph 705.201(2)(a) and who has assigned two or more flight attendants to a flight using an aeroplane of that model may operate the aeroplane for that flight without one of the flight attendants if

(2) The air operator shall keep a record of the replacement for at least two years after the day on which the flight is completed.

Embarking and Disembarking of Passengers

705.222 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), an air operator who operates an aeroplane to carry passengers shall ensure that all flight attendants assigned to a flight using that aeroplane are on board during passenger embarkation and disembarkation.

(2) In the case of a flight to which more than one flight attendant is assigned, the air operator may reduce the number of flight attendants by one during passenger embarkation if

(3) In the case of a flight to which more than one flight attendant is assigned, the air operator may reduce the number of flight attendants during passenger disembarkation if

(4) Paragraphs (2)(b) and (3)(a) do not apply in respect of an engine on a propeller-driven aeroplane if

(5) The air operator shall ensure that, during passenger embarkation and disembarkation,

Stops

705.223 (1) An air operator shall not permit passengers to remain on board an aeroplane during an intermediate stop unless

(2) Paragraph (1)(a) does not apply in respect of an engine on a propeller-driven aeroplane if

(3) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply if the exit is closed or latched for climatic reasons.

(4) A flight attendant on board an aeroplane referred to in paragraph (1)(c) or (d) may be replaced by an individual other than a flight attendant if

Emergency Duties

705.224 (1) An air operator shall, for each model of aeroplane in its fleet that is operated to carry passengers, set out, in its flight attendant manual, the duties to be performed by the flight attendants in an emergency.

(2) The air operator shall not operate an aeroplane to carry passengers unless those duties are assigned to flight attendants on board the aeroplane.

Emergency Evacuation — Before and During Surface Movements

705.225 An air operator shall, for each aeroplane in its fleet that is operated to carry passengers, have procedures to ensure that

Single-aisle Aeroplane

705.226 Despite section 605.09, no person shall conduct a take-off in a single-aisle aeroplane that is carrying passengers unless all emergency exits and escape slides are operative.

[705.227 reserved]

21. The reference “[705.206 to 705.219 reserved]” after section 705.205 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Extended Over-water Operations

705.206 If an air operator decides to operate an aeroplane to carry passengers in extended over-water operations and the aeroplane is required to have survival equipment under section 602.63, the air operator shall carry out a demonstration of its ditching emergency evacuation procedures for the model of that aeroplane before starting the extended over-water operations.

Carrying Out a Demonstration of Emergency Evacuation Procedures — Ditching

705.207 (1) An air operator who carries out a demonstration of its ditching emergency evacuation procedures for a model of aeroplane shall

(2) A life-sized mock-up of a model of aeroplane or floating device must

[705.208 to 705.219 reserved]

22. The reference “[705.227 reserved]” after section 705.226 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Standardization

705.227 No air operator shall operate an aeroplane to carry passengers unless the emergency equipment, the stowage locations for emergency equipment and the emergency procedures are standardized for all aeroplanes in the air operator’s fleet that are operated under this Subpart to carry passengers.

COMING INTO FORCE

23. (1) Subject to subsection (2), these Regulations come into force 45 days after the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

(2) Sections 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21 and 22 come into force on September 15, 2017.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Background

Currently, the Canadian Aviation Regulations (the Regulations or the CARs) require one flight attendant for every 40 passengers on board a passenger-carrying aeroplane operated under Subpart 5 “Airline Operations” of Part VII “Commercial Air Services” (Subpart 705) and Subpart 4 “Private Operators” of Part VI “General Operating and Flight Rules” (Subpart 604).

This flight attendant requirement pre-dates the CARs. When the CARs were first introduced in 1996 for commercial airline operators, the flight attendant requirement was not modified except for the introduction of a provision for certain eligible aircraft such as the CL 600 2B19 (Bombardier regional jets), the ATR42-300 (short-haul regional airplanes, twin turbo-prop engines, made by the French/Italian manufacturer ATR) and the DHC8-300 (a “Dash 8,” is a twin turbo-prop engine airplane manufactured by Bombardier) configured with only 50 passenger seats to operate with a single flight attendant. However, there are additional requirements that dictate a minimum staffing level based on the aeroplane type/configuration, the number of exits, and any special considerations arising from the certification of an aeroplane.

When an aircraft is originally designed, built and certified to carry passengers, a maximum permissible number of seats are established for the aircraft based on numerous safety-related criteria, among which are the number and size of exits on the aircraft, the distance between exits, and the aisle widths. Each crew and passenger area must have means to allow for rapid evacuation in crash landings and emergencies. The manufacturer of the aircraft must prove, through live demonstration that a full aircraft can be successfully evacuated within 90 seconds, in darkened conditions, with 50% of the emergency exits blocked. Even though the Canadian flight attendant ratio has historically been 1:40 passengers for Subpart 705 operators and most Subpart 604 operators, this demonstration is conducted with a flight attendant ratio of 1:50 passenger seats. This ratio is used during the manufacturer’s demonstration to facilitate the sale of aeroplanes internationally, as the 1:50 ratio is most commonly used.

In 2002, Transport Canada (TC) received a request from the Air Transport Association of Canada (ATAC) to consider the inclusion of an operating rule allowing for a ratio of one flight attendant per 50 configured passenger seats (1:50 passenger seats) in parallel with the existing regulatory requirement that requires a ratio of one flight attendant per 40 passengers carried (1:40 passengers). This gives airlines the option to operate their aeroplane fleet with a 1:40 ratio and with a 1:50 ratio where it is deemed beneficial to do so.

In 2003, TC conducted a risk assessment that considered Canada’s flight attendant regulatory requirements as well as those from other regulatory jurisdictions, the impact on safety to passengers and flight attendants, and harmonization with the regulatory requirements of other jurisdictions. The conclusion was that the inclusion of a 1:50 passenger seat operating rule for Subpart 705 operators would provide an acceptable level of safety provided “mitigating features” (e.g. clarifying training requirements for the familiarity with aeroplane systems and for in-charge flight attendants) were implemented.

Based on this risk assessment, TC determined that with the implementation of mitigating features, it was acceptable from a safety perspective to incorporate a 1:50 passenger seat ratio into the CARs for Subpart 705 operators.

Additionally, through the course of the 2003 risk assessment and consultations with stakeholders, existing regulatory gaps (that may affect safety) were identified (i.e. outside of the need to introduce mitigating safety features with the implementation of a 1:50 ratio) with respect to flight attendant requirements and qualifications in commercial aviation overall. The identified regulatory gaps would also be made applicable to operators who decide to retain the existing 1:40 passenger ratio. In 2006, a decision was made not to proceed with regulatory changes to flight attendant requirements to allow for more time to consider stakeholder feedback on this issue.

In 2013–2014, in response to an industry request, the Minister of Transport authorized the issuance of exemptions to one private operator and seven commercial air operators, pursuant to subsection 5.9(2) of the Aeronautics Act, allowing these operators to fully transition to the 1:50 ratio for operation of their narrow body aeroplanes. The exemptions were granted with certain conditions to require these operators to implement mitigating features identified in the risk assessment (e.g. demonstration of emergency evacuation procedures; and clarification of the in-charge flight attendant requirements) when using the 1:50 flight attendant ratio.

All exemptions are available publicly, on TC’s Web site at http://wwwapps2.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/exemptions/e_s.aspx?lang=eng.

Issues

Airline operation costs are high. In an effort to reduce operating costs and put Canadian operators on a competitive and level playing field with United States (U.S.) and European carriers, who fly in and out of Canada with a 1:50 ratio, certain Canadian operators requested an exemption to Canada’s flight attendant ratio requirement, which would permit them to operate with fewer flight attendants on board their aeroplanes.

In 2013–2014, the Minister of Transport granted exemptions to Canada’s major commercial airline companies, which has allowed them to utilize a 1:50 flight attendant ratio. As these exemptions are temporary in nature, this regulatory amendment is required to formally incorporate the option to use the 1:50 flight attendant ratio into the CARs. Since the exemptions required operators to implement safety mitigation features in order to operate their aeroplanes using the 1:50 flight attendant ratio, these mitigation features will also be incorporated into the CARs. TC’s 2003 risk assessment and subsequent 2004 Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) development concluded that these mitigation features were also considered regulatory gaps within the 1:40 flight attendant ratio regime. These regulatory gaps will be addressed at this time, and are applicable to both 1:40 and 1:50 flight attendant ratio regimes.

Objectives

The objectives of these amendments are to

Description

The following is a description of the changes made to the Regulations.

Flight attendant ratio
For Subpart 705 commercial operators

The option of having one flight attendant for every 50 passenger seats (1:50 flight attendant ratio) was introduced. The 1:40 flight attendant ratio will not be removed from the CARs; this option will remain available to operators.

Operators are allowed to select the ratio that will apply to each aeroplane model in their fleet. Operators will have to notify TC of a change to their selected ratio by first: (i) providing the Minister of Transport with a notice in writing of this decision at least 60 days before implementing the change, and (ii) the Minister has acknowledged receipt of the notice.

Operators who have already been granted with exemptions, and are utilizing the 1:50 ratio will not have to notify TC. Should an operator choose to change the number of flight attendants to the 1:50 ratio on any of its aeroplanes models, the operator may revert back to the 1:40 ratio for any given aeroplane model. In order to do so, operators will have to advise the Minister of Transport in the same manner as indicated in the preceding paragraph.

For Subpart 604 private operators

This Subpart was revised to provide a ratio of one flight attendant for each unit of 50 passengers from the current ratio of one flight attendant for each unit of 40 passengers. This will expand the applicability of the 1:50 flight attendant ratio beyond the aeroplane models found in the exceptions currently embedded in the Regulations (i.e. beyond the models listed in the “Background” section).

Incorporating mitigation features and addressing regulatory gaps

The following requirements are current conditions in the exemptions that were granted to Canada’s major airlines in 2013–2014, as noted above. They have now been added to Subpart 604 and Subpart 705 of the CARs.

As a result, while the operators who have been granted exemptions have already had to meet these requirements, any Subpart 705 operator who chooses to utilize a 1:50 flight attendant ratio in the future will be required to fulfill these requirements. The Subpart 604 operators utilizing aeroplanes with 20 or more passenger seats will be required to apply these requirements. Similarly, any Subpart 705 operator using the 1:40 ratio will also be required to follow these requirements if (a) they make a change to an aeroplane configuration and (b) when they accept delivery of a new model of aeroplane:

This is intended to be an outcome-based regulatory requirement given the number of different models of aeroplanes across the fleets of Canadian operators. In order to give operators time to prepare, the coming into force of this requirement is delayed until September 15, 2017.

These amendments introduce operational improvements in occupant safety and survivability for aeroplanes currently in operation by incorporating the related certification requirements for the design of newer aeroplanes.

These amendments are harmonized with the equivalent U.S. regulations that reflect updates and improvements to the crashworthiness standards applicable to the operation of aeroplanes by U.S. private and commercial operators.

The enhanced flame resistance of cabin interior materials and passenger seat requirements will apply only to Subpart 705 aeroplanes and will not be implemented retroactively.

The following changes apply only to Subpart 705 operators (using either flight attendant ratio):

The differences between the exemptions and the amendments to the CARs outlined above are

Consultation

Early NPAs

A Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) is consulted through the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC). The CARAC is comprised of approximately 550 members that include representatives of aviation associations, airlines, manufacturers, maintenance organizations, airports, provincial and federal departments involved in transportation, foreign aviation safety authorities, unions and Transport Canada employees.

In 2004, NPAs 2004-016 to NPA 2004-027 were sent to all members of the CARAC. These NPAs proposed the introduction of the 1:50 passenger seat ratio and the ability to have a mixed fleet operating with two different ratios. Stakeholders had various concerns with the proposed amendments:

In response, TC stated that the provisions being proposed are internationally recognized and form the basis of the 1:50 operational environment in the U.S. and Europe and that this proposal will advance the Canadian aviation regulatory environment towards the federal government goal of international regulatory harmonization to improve international cooperation and to enhance Canada’s ability to compete internationally.

In response, TC explained that during the risk assessment process, specific security scenarios were not developed or assessed as the risk of loss of life from terrorist or hijacking activity remains high regardless of the flight attendant ratio in use.

In response, in accordance with the Air Transportation Regulations (ATRs), Part VII — Terms and Conditions of Carriage of Persons, air carriers must provide a specific set of services for persons with disabilities on aeroplanes with 30 or more passenger seats. This regulatory change does not alter any obligations under the ATRs.

TC responded to this comment by acknowledging that the risk assessment found that the 1:50 ratio does not provide a consistent equivalent level of safety in comparison to the current 1:40 ratio, and that practically, it would be more than equivalent when operating with reduced passenger loads and less equivalent when operating at full passenger loads. Mitigating actions have been identified to aid in enhancing the equivalency of this option. 

TC responded by stating that some of the proposed mitigation measures have been identified as being relevant to the existing flight attendant requirements. By applying these measures (addressing the gaps) consistently to all operators, a difference in the level of safety measured between the two options remains, but the 1:50 option still provides an acceptable level of safety when compared to the current level of safety associated with the 1:40 ratio. TC also stated that there is no direct evidence that the overall safety level will be adversely affected by providing air operators with the flexibility of choosing to operate with two different flight attendant ratios. 

In response, TC stated that while the requirement to perform a demonstration of emergency evacuation procedures is one of the mitigations of the risk assessment for the reduced flight attendant ratio, it was determined during the preparation of the NPAs that it would be appropriate to apply the requirement to all Canadian Subpart 705 air operators because the justification for requiring demonstrations are applicable regardless of the flight attendant ratio. The justification is that the only demonstration that is conducted currently is the manufacturers’ demonstration at the time of aeroplane type certification. The manufacturers’ demonstration is conducted without regard to operator specific crew member training, operating procedures, ditching procedures or portable emergency equipment interactions, which are of concern to the air operator.

In response, TC stated the CARAC process allows members to discuss and debate issues from various viewpoints. Where it can be demonstrated that any regulatory proposal is inadequate or incomplete, it can be reconsidered. 

Intervention of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

In 2003–2004, several stakeholders (i.e. union representatives, pilot associations and one national association) and TC officials appeared before the Standing Committee to explain the proposed regulatory changes and their potential impact on the travelling public. Following its deliberations on the issue, the Standing Committee directed the Minister of Transport to provide it with a draft copy of the Regulations prior to prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I. 

The proposed regulatory amendments were ready to proceed with prepublication in Canada Gazette, Part I. However, on September 22, 2006, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities at the time, announced that TC would continue to study the issue and would not table any changes to the flight attendant ratio in the near future.

A second more recent risk assessment was not conducted because in general, the 2003 risk assessment engaged stakeholders directly by including them in the assessment process. TC determined that no new data would have become available considering the long history of 1:50 flight attendant requirements in the U.S. (which was the basis for the assessment). Additionally, the 2003 risk assessment followed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in the U.S., for which mitigating features for such events and issues relating to management of the cabin and cockpit had already been incorporated across the industry internationally, including in Canada.

Notice of Proposed Amendments (2014)

Following the issuance of the exemptions to allow major Canadian operators to use the 1:50 flight attendant ratio, TC released an NPA to consult on formally adopting this rule in the CARs, given the amount of time that had elapsed since the 2004 NPAs on the subject were released.

NPA 2014-006 was shared online for consultation from March 24 to April 11, 2014, with approximately 550 members of the CARAC. Five submissions (with 16 comments total) were received from stakeholders (2 airlines, 1 regional association, 1 lawyer and 1 member of the public) seeking clarification on the requirements for one flight attendant at each floor level exit (this was originally proposed, but was subsequently removed from the regulatory project due to an insufficient safety case for having it apply) and the reason for the partial and ditching demonstrations. As a result, a revised Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA 2014-006) was prepared.

The difference between the two NPAs centered primarily on offering more details on requirements and more clearly stating who (Subparts 705 and/or 604) the proposed changes would apply to.

The revised NPA was posted online and shared with CARAC members for consultation from May 13 to June 22, 2014. An additional 73 comments were received on the revised NPA from several airlines, 2 national associations, 2 regional associations and 5 various components of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE). Sixty percent of the total submissions were received by individual flight attendants who are not CARAC members.

Many of the comments received were the same as those previously raised in relation to this regulatory change during the 2004 NPA consultations, these included: the perception that no amount of mitigation can make up for the reduced number of flight attendants on flights; criticism that this amendment was not brought forward in 2004; economic versus safety concerns; perception of increased security risks and lowering the level and/or quality of service to travellers with disabilities or special needs; concerns for continued compliance with the 90 seconds emergency evacuation requirement and the validity of the evacuation demonstrations (including for airlines already operating under an exemption) and ditching capabilities.

CARAC Technical Committee special meeting 

In light of the public attention on this file, a CARAC Technical Committee special meeting was held to discuss the amendments on May 22, 2014. A meeting notice was sent to the 550 CARAC members. In addition, CUPE invited two members of Parliament and several flight attendants to attend the meeting. Participants were able to attend in person or participate via teleconference from several locations across Canada.

While a full range of stakeholders (e.g. unions, industry associations, individual air carriers) attended the CARAC Technical Committee special meeting, the discussions were dominated by individuals and organizations representing flight attendants who were not CARAC members.

The comments made at the meeting were similar to those expressed in both 2004 and 2014 NPAs. These comments are summarized in terms of support, partial support and opposition below.

Stakeholders who have expressed support of these changes: (i.e. two national airlines, two national associations, one regional association and a handful of flight attendants), have indicated that they are of the view that the changes enhance the role of the in-charge flight attendant; the evacuation process for wide-body aeroplanes by requiring floor level exits to be supervised; and, evacuation procedures and training for narrow-body aeroplanes by reducing the risk of an inefficient passenger evacuation in the case of an emergency.

Stakeholders who have expressed partial support for these changes: (i.e. one national and one regional association, one operator and several union components) have mixed views on the following components of the changes and have mentioned that adding safety requirements to the 1:40 flight attendant ratio did not recognize safety gaps or differences in level of safety between the 1:40 and 1:50 ratios; that Canada is unique in allowing an air operator to choose to operate with one ratio on one aeroplane type, and the other ratio on another aeroplane type (i.e. the mixed ratio); and that the ability to change the flight attendant ratio can be perceived as loss of control of compliance.

Stakeholders who disagreed with the changes: (i.e. union components, a regional association, several flight attendants, one passenger with a mobility impairment) stated that TC’s motive for proposing these regulatory changes is only for cost-savings for air operators; flight attendants should not have to trade their job security and the safety of the public for an airline company’s cost-savings; and that the special needs of disabled passengers, infants and seniors with reduced mobility would not be adequately met.

The vast majority of the comments received during the 2014 consultations were the same as the ones received in previous consultation forums. There were two new arguments with regard to unaccompanied minors where a reduction in ratio could in turn have an impact on the child and the parent’s legal separation agreement. The second new argument from a union was that the “flip-flop” (or changing) ratio option is unenforceable.

In response, to concerns for unaccompanied minors, TC is of the view that this issue is outside the scope of the Regulations, and that the level of impact is subject to the policy decisions of each individual airline and whether or not they choose to accommodate this circumstance. The introduction of the option to use either the 1:40 or the 1:50 flight attendant ratio provided operational flexibility and was seen as beneficial for airlines. The union and its members were the only stakeholders opposed to it.

“One-for-One” Rule

The “One-for-One” Rule applies to these amendments, and will result in an “IN” for the purposes of the “One-for-One” Rule in the total amount of $2,688, affecting only four operators. This is a one-time, upfront cost, and does not recur annually.

The cost for the operators who will accept new aeroplane model deliveries in the next 10 years will have a one-time administrative cost of $672 due to the need to apply to TC to undertake emergency evacuation demonstrations for their new aeroplanes.

The cost for the operators, who will conduct ditching demonstrations in the next 10 years as a result of their decision to conduct extended overwater flights, will incur a one-time administrative cost of $2,016 stemming from the need to apply for the emergency evacuation demonstrations (i.e. land and ditching demonstrations).

Recording of who the in-charge flight attendant is for each flight will not result in an incremental increase in administrative burden because all operators are already complying with this requirement by recording this information as a part of their crew list manifests. Operators will not incur costs as a result of having to retain and store records of the in-charge flight attendant for 90 days, since they already keep the manifests for longer periods. The reported impact of these requirements have been confirmed by a TC cabin safety technical team lead who works closely with the subject operators while verifying compliance to exemptions and coordinating or partaking in other certification and enforcement activities.

Small business lens

The regulatory changes only affect large businesses; therefore the small business lens does not apply.

Rationale

Alignment with other jurisdictions

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) requires that the minimum number of cabin crew required for each type of aeroplane be based on either seating capacity or the number of passengers carried in order to make possible a safe and efficient evacuation of the aeroplane. The majority of nations, including the U.S., require one flight attendant for every 50 passenger seats installed on an aircraft. The Commission Regulation (European Union) No. 965/2012, Annex III — Organization Requirements for Air Operations [Part-ORO], Subpart CC — Cabin Crew requires that there be one cabin crew member for every 50 passenger seats installed on the same deck of the aeroplane. These requirements are applicable to all members of the European Union (for example France, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom). An exception to the one flight attendant per 50 passenger seats requirement is Australia whose Civil Aviation Orders require one flight attendant for every 36 passengers on board. Although the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority has a lower ratio than all other jurisdictions, they are presently granting exemptions to allow a ratio of 1:50 passenger seats.

Allowing Canadian operators to utilize the 1:50 flight attendant ratio would further align Canada’s requirements with that of the U.S. and the European Union.

Cost-benefit analysis

Based on the cost-benefit analysis TC conducted, the total costs associated with these amendments are $137,060 (present value [PV] over 10 years), and the total benefits are anticipated to be $288,607,000 (PV over 10 years). As a result, the net benefit is approximately $288,469,940 (PV over 10 years).

The benefits associated with (i) the option to use either the 1:40 or the 1:50 flight attendant ratio for Subpart 705 operators, and (ii) making the 1:50 flight attendant ratio applicable to all Subpart 604 operators — while still protecting the existing level of safety by implementing accompanying mitigating features (i.e. by addressing regulatory gaps) — are expected to outweigh any associated costs.

Any operator which does not expect to benefit, from a cost savings perspective, from transitioning to the 1:50 flight attendant ratio will be able to continue operating with the current 1:40 flight attendant ratio, without incurring any additional costs. The choice to use the 1:50 flight attendant ratio is at the discretion of Subpart 705 operators.

For additional information on the assumptions and methodologies used in the cost-benefit analysis, please contact TC using the contact information provided for below.

Benefits

Addressing the regulatory gaps within the 1:40 passenger ratio regime will further enhance the safety requirements imposed on commercial airplane operations, and would contribute to reducing the risks to life, health, the environment and property, associated with survivable airplane accidents.

Addressing these same gaps for 1:50 passenger seat operations would serve to maintain the current level of safety experienced and reduce the risk of deviating from the passenger evacuation times as demonstrated during initial type certification of the aeroplane.

For operators who choose to utilize the 1:50 flight attendant ratio, there is a potential for these companies to obtain operational cost savings in that they will be able to reduce the number of flight attendants on board the aeroplanes of their choice, and in turn, contribute to increasing the market competitiveness of Canadian airline companies.

TC anticipates that the economic benefits associated with the 1:50 flight attendant ratio would apply to both private operators and commercial air operators of aeroplanes configured with more than 80 passenger seats. Subpart 705 operators of aeroplanes configured with 80 or fewer passenger seats would likely not elect to change flight attendant operating ratios, as there is no clear operational or financial benefit to do so.

TC has estimated the economic benefits (in the form of cost savings) associated with these amendments using flight attendant salaries, hotel stays and per diems and by calculating the total reduction in the number of flight attendants across the Canadian fleet of operators over the course of the next 10 years.

Costs

The decision as to which ratio is chosen for its operations will be made on a company-by-company basis, and is dependent on each individual company’s knowledge of its market and of its projected load factors. TC is of the view that airline companies will choose a regime that is most beneficial to its operations.

Given that eight operators have already been granted the authority to operate with the 1:50 ratio regime, any costs attributable to the transition to a 1:50 ratio regime are not a direct result of these Regulations. They are attributable to the exemptions granted in 2013–2014, as noted in the “Background” section. These exemptions were only applicable to narrow-body aeroplanes. Operators will incur costs from having to conduct ditching demonstrations for their wide body aeroplanes which they use for extended overwater flights; exemptions were not granted for wide-body aeroplanes.

Operators must notify TC in writing if there is any change in the operating flight attendant ratio (either from 1:40 to 1:50 or vice versa) at anytime giving 60 days notice before they may operate with that new ratio. The cost of notification is not included in the cost-benefit analysis because the operator chooses to change the ratio on a voluntary basis. The Minister of Transport must acknowledge the notice, which is considered a cost to the Government. TC will absorb these costs through its existing reference levels.

Operators who either choose to move to the 1:50 ratio regime or continue operating with the 1:40 ratio regime will incur costs associated with the “mitigation features” which address regulatory gaps, as identified by TC. Addressing these regulatory gaps is also expected of Subpart 604 operators except for the requirements of the in-charge flight attendant.

These costs stem from

(1) Demonstration of Emergency Evacuation Procedures

The costs associated with this requirement result from operators having to demonstrate their evacuation procedures and equipment reliability when a new aeroplane model is introduced or when they make a change to the location of the flight attendants or their emergency evacuation duties or procedures; the number, location or type of emergency exits; or the number, location or type of opening mechanism of an emergency exit. This is a one-time cost per aeroplane model.

Since most operators who have chosen to change their flight attendant ratio to 1:50 as a result of the exemptions they have been granted, TC anticipates that the cost associated with this requirement will only relate to the delivery of three new models of aeroplanes forecast to be introduced over the next 10 years (i.e. B787-9, B737-MAX and B767-xxx). The costs stem from the need to deploy and re-pack the emergency evacuation slides as well as the need to pay flight attendants for the hours spent working during the demonstration. It is assumed that the demonstrations will take place prior to when these three new models of aeroplanes are put into service for operation. This means that it is anticipated that the affected operators will avoid a loss in revenue (i.e. by avoiding having to take the aeroplane out of service).

Should an operator choose to transition to the 1:50 flight attendant ratio in the future, and, thereby, trigger the requirement to conduct an emergency evacuation demonstration for any aeroplane model it chooses to utilize the 1:50 flight attendant ratio on, it would be a voluntary and internal business decision. Since operators would have to opt-in to the 1:50 flight attendant ratio regime, any costs incurred as a result would be at the discretion of individual operators.

Procedural changes, such as changes in training and commands, during an evacuation are not expected to introduce new costs, as airline companies will only have to amend their existing internal documents, which is done on a regular basis as part of the normal course of business. Therefore, any costs associated with this change are expected to be absorbed as part of ongoing operational expenses.

The cost associated with having to submit a time-encoded video of their emergency evacuation demonstration for Subpart 604 operators has not been added to the cost-benefit analysis. One private operator has already been granted an exemption and has incurred the associated costs. Other private operators currently using aeroplane models configured with 44 or more passenger seats, including the B737-200, CL-600-2D24 (90 seats) and DHC-8-4, are not expected to make any changes to their operations that would trigger the requirement to conduct a demonstration.

(2) Ditching Demonstrations

The costs associated with the requirement to conduct a ditching demonstration will impact only those operators with routes more than 50 nautical miles from the nearest shoreline and who are required to have life rafts. The Regulations require three operators who have extended overwater flights to conduct a ditching demonstration regardless of the flight attendant ratio they operate with.

The total cost for operators associated with this requirement is estimated to be $91,522. The cost for this demonstration will stem primarily from the need to deploy and re-pack rafts or slide/rafts as part of the demonstration. This cost includes the anticipated costs for two operators that will take delivery of one new model each over the next 10 years for this type of operation.

The cost associated with having to submit a time-encoded video of the ditching demonstration for Subpart 604 operators has not been added to the cost-benefit analysis. One private operator has already been granted an exemption and has incurred the associated costs. Other private operators currently using aeroplane models configured with 44 or more passenger seats, including the B737-200, CL-600-2D24 (90 seats) and DHC-8-4, are not expected to conduct extended overwater flights.

Exemptions were granted for narrow-body aeroplanes only; three operators are already compliant with respect to the ditching demonstration (and were witnessed by TC) and the other operators who have been granted exemptions for their narrow-body aeroplane do not operate extended overwater flights.

(3) Standardization

The assumption of no cost is made for the standardization of the location and accessibility of emergency equipment (e.g. oxygen bottle or medical kit in the event of a medical emergency) on Subparts 604 and 705 operated aeroplanes. The seven Subpart 705 operators who have been granted exemptions already comply with this requirement.

Of the 38 Subpart 705 operators in Canada, the remaining 31 did not indicate an impact to them in response to the 2014 NPA. No future costs are assumed due to this requirement because as new aeroplanes are incorporated into an operator’s fleet, they will be standardized as part of the interior design specific for that operator.

Of the three affected Subpart 604 operators (i.e. they operate aeroplanes with 20 or more passengers on more than one aeroplane), none have to standardize their fleet since they all have only one model of aeroplane and are already standardized.

(4) In-charge Flight Attendant

All Subpart 705 operators, regardless of the flight attendant ratio they operate under, will have to record who the in-charge flight attendant is for each flight and retain those records for 90 days.

Various TC regional inspectors (national operations, Ontario region, Atlantic region), covering both large and small Subpart 705 air operators, state that there are a number of methods different air operators currently use to track who was the in-charge flight attendant, including tracking it in the crew scheduling, cabin log book, or crew manifests (often required for security or trans-border purposes). The Regulations allow the operator the flexibility of determining the best means of tracking who the in-charge flight attendant is. In other words, the Regulations do not require the use of another method other than the one they are already using. The rationale for this requirement is for enforcement purposes. Therefore, it is not expected that the operators will incur any new costs as a result of this requirement.

(5) Training

There will be no costs associated with in-charge flight attendant training because this requirement is only a clarification of what is already required for training purposes. This requirement only impacts Subpart 705 operators.

There will be no costs associated with the changes to flight attendant training, as TC anticipates that operators will make modifications to their existing training programs, and will not have to allocate additional resources to meet these requirements. This requirement affects both Subpart 705 and Subpart 604 operators.

(6) Emergency Features (Equipment and Emergency Exit Requirements)

There will be no costs associated with the new requirements for operators to use more current flammability standards for interior components because these requirements will not apply retroactively for all operators.

There is no cost for operators related to the emergency features, such as interior and exterior lighting and marking, because it is anticipated that any operator using the 1:50 flight attendant ratio will do so on an aeroplane that already meets the required standards, whereas the aeroplane models in which they will use the 1:40 ratio operations are not subject to the requirement. Older aeroplanes are subject to the requirements when operating with the 1:50 ratio to prevent entry of non-compliant aeroplanes into Canada.

When ordering new aeroplanes, operators will be required to ensure that these requirements are met; the costs involved are part of the overall purchase/leasing price of the new aeroplanes.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

These amendments to the Canadian Aviation Regulations will be enforced through the use of administrative monetary penalties imposed under sections 7.6 to 8.2 of the Aeronautics Act, 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.

The Regulations come into force 45 days after the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, with exception to the standardization and ditching demonstration requirements which will come into force on September 15, 2017.

Contact

Chief
Regulatory Affairs (AARBH)
Safety and Security
Transport Canada
Place de Ville, Tower C
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N8
Telephone: 613-990-1184 or 1-800-305-2059
Fax: 613-990-1198
Web site: www.tc.gc.ca