Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I and VI – Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder): SOR/2019-130

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 153, Number 11

Registration

SOR/2019-130 May 10, 2019

AERONAUTICS ACT

P.C. 2019-479 May 9, 2019

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, pursuant to section 4.9 footnote a and paragraphs 7.6(1)(a) footnote b and (b) footnote c of the Aeronautics Act footnote d, makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I and VI – Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder).

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 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 and data-link communications equipment, no person shall dispatch or conduct a take-off in the aircraft unless the aircraft is equipped with a data-link 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.

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.

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

Cost-benefit statement: Indirect safety benefits may result from findings by the TSB following an accident if applicable aircraft have the 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 over a 10-year period with an annualized value of $3.8 million (approximately, based on 7% discount rate, over 10 years with the base year as 2017). The estimated number of aircraft in Canada that will be impacted by the Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I and VI – Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder) [the amended Regulations] is 996.

“One-for-One” Rule and small business lens: The “One-for-One” Rule applies since the amended Regulations will require the operator to submit a certification request to Transport Canada (TC) whereby the installation of the CVR/RIPS equipment will 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 will be impacted by the amended Regulations have 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) which develops international standards. The amended regulations will align Canada’s CVR requirements with international standards.

Background

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

As part of its final report, the TSB recommended that all aircraft that require both a flight data recorder (FDR) and a CVR be required to be fitted with a CVR having a recording capacity of at least two hours. The TSB further recommended that a dedicated independent power supply be installed adjacent or integral to the CVR in order to power the CVR and the cockpit area microphone for a period of 10 minutes.

In 2001, ICAO made revisions to the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) for 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, as well as a 10-minute backup power supply for new aircraft designs. In 2013, ICAO introduced new standards for large commercial aeroplanes and helicopters already in operation (the “2013 ICAO standards”).

The United States (U.S.) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) adopted the 2001 ICAO standards by amending the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations requiring the installation of CVRs that can retain two hours of recorded information, and a 10-minute backup power supply for all new aircraft designs. Similar standards were adopted in Canada in 2003 through amendments to the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) Part V — Airworthiness Manual. As such, 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.

These standards introduced into the CARs in 2003 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 will 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 amendments.

Issues

Canada is not aligned with international CVR standards

The 2013 ICAO standards included the requirement to have a two-hour CVR for large commercial aeroplanes and 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 (some of which may have an integrated RIP depending on when they were manufactured), which constitute the remainder of the impacted Canadian fleet, do not meet the 2013 ICAO standards.

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

Past accidents have demonstrated that having a CVR that retains recorded information for 30 minutes on aeroplanes with a 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 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-engine 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 if authorized, as per the aircraft certification and operating certificate, and provided they are equipped with an auto-pilot system. An operator may operate these aircraft with two pilots without a functioning CVR for a period of 45 days while the auto-pilot system is not in service.

Objectives

The objectives of the regulatory amendments and associated standards are

Description

The amendments and associated standards will enhance the time period of information captured by the CVR by

The changes will be applicable to aircraft currently in operations. These aircraft will be required to be retrofitted if not already compliant, so they have updated CVR recording duration and a 10-minute RIPS. The operators impacted by the amendments operate aircraft as summarized in the following table.

Size, Engine Type and Number of Passengers

Cut-in Date

Current Requirement

New Requirement
Turbine-powered aeroplanes over 27 000 kg Type certificated after September 30, 1969, and manufactured before January 1, 1987 30-minute CVR Two-hour CVR
10-minute RIPS
All aeroplanes over 5 700 kg Manufactured after 1987, but before 2003 30-minute CVR Two-hour CVR
10-minute RIPS
All aeroplanes over 5 700 kg Manufactured after 2002 2-hour CVR No
RIPSfootnote 2		 No change to CVR
10-minute RIPS
Helicopters over 7 000 kg Manufactured after 2002 2-hour CVR No
RIPSfootnote 2		 No change to CVR
10-minute RIPS

In addition, the amendments will clarify that a functioning CVR is required for a multi-engine 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 auto-pilot is functioning. In instances where the auto-pilot is not functioning, two pilots must operate the aeroplane, thus a CVR is required to capture the conversations in the cockpit. The amendment will allow operations without a functioning CVR for a period of 45 days. Past that date, if the operator wishes to continue operations with two pilots, a functioning CVR will be required.

An additional technical amendment will move the existing associated standards requirement related to underwater locating devices for FDRs and cockpit voice recorders to the CARs.

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

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

A new section 605.34, Cockpit Voice Recorder, will be introduced to separate the CVR requirements from the FDR requirements, which are presently contained in the same section and will now each have their own dedicated provisions. A 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. The requirements for FDR will remain unchanged.

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 CVRs. 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 CVRs. 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 our transportation system, promoting economic efficiency, accessibility, sustainability of the national transportation system, promoting stakeholder satisfaction, and the principles of shared commitment and partnerships with industry.

The ICAO recommendations were considered as a regulatory option which 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 standards for CVR requirements, but not the 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 standards and not the ICAO recommendations, which are recommendations only, the original proposed aircraft applicability will be reduced as follows:

The regulatory amendments and associated standards will apply to Canadian commuter and transport category aeroplanes, transport category helicopters of 7 000 kg (15 400 pounds) or more, and multi-engine 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 the 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 either aircraft, airport and/or operational improvements.

TSB cost savings may be possible if an accident investigation were to take less time due to the 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 will be aligned with the United States.

Costs

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). These costs are based on the implementation for the 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 will be approximately $7.5 million per year.

The cost for a CVR installation (cost of unit and installation fees) is estimated at $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, of the approximately 1 526 large aeroplanes in operation in Canada, approximately 85% of these aeroplanes already have updated CVRs. The estimate per aircraft includes the administrative burden of submitting the certification request to Transport Canada.

The population as obtained from Transport Canada’s aircraft database, consists of 941 aeroplanes manufactured after 1986 with a MCTOW of over 5 700 kg (12 500 pounds); 16 aeroplanes manufactured before 1987 with a 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

Amended
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 to CVR
10-minute RIPS

Helicopters over 7 000 kg

Manufactured after 2002

2-hour CVR
No RIPS

No change to CVR
10-minute RIPS

39

Cost-benefit statement footnote 3

 

Base Year:
2017

2018–2020

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 footnote 4

$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 amended Regulations will require the operator to submit a certification request to Transport Canada whereby the installation of the CVR/RIPS equipment will be approved. 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 will be approved for all of the aircraft of the same type within the individual operator’s fleet. It is assumed that four requests will be made by 26 large businesses and two requests will be made by each of the 134 small businesses that have been identified. 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 amended Regulations may impact 134 air operators that could be considered small businesses in Canada, out of the estimated 160 businesses to which the regulatory amendments apply. A small business is defined as having annual gross revenue of between $30,000 and $5 million, or 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 CARs 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 will require a new CVR. The small businesses represent approximately 79% of the businesses possibly impacted by these 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 two to three aircraft each and the regulatory amendments come into force within 4 years of final publication.

A 6-year implementation time frame was considered by Transport Canada in order to provide economic relief for those small businesses. 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 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 two to three aircraft and 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 it is assumed that within 4 years other maintenance work will also likely be done on the applicable aircraft at which time a CVR could be installed and that the FAA has already set a precedent of 4 years. Moreover, the cost of a CVR and installation is a fraction of the cost compared to maintaining the aircraft over its lifecycle. Depending on the model of the aircraft, some engine overhauls can cost $250,000 to $2.1 million.

Transport Canada does not consider a six-year implementation time frame as a flexible option since ICAO and the aviation community internationally has been looking at piecemeal changes since 2001 (i.e. for new aircraft designs). A six-year delay from the Canada Gazette, Part II, publication date represents an overly lengthy 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 where 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 CVR and RIPS among small businesses is not even.

The distribution of aircraft requiring the CVR and RIPS among small businesses is not even.

Note: 1. Costs have been estimated using the Standard Cost Model. Detailed calculations are available upon request.
Note: 2. The time period of the analysis is 10 years. The price of the CVR and RIPS installation is $30,000 per aircraft in 2016 Canadian dollars.

Consultation

Notice of Proposed Amendment

Members of the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC) were consulted on the regulatory amendments through a Notice of Proposed Amendment in the fall of 2011. In light of the feedback received from CARAC members, a risk assessment was conducted early in 2012. The focus of the risk assessment was to determine the scope and the population of aircraft subject to the proposed requirements taking into consideration the fact that the ICAO 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 TSB and the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada. However, one stakeholder 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 regulatory amendments do not include non-transport helicopters.

Another stakeholder expressed a concern regarding the retrofit time for smaller operators and requested that retrofit requirements be phased in by operating type. Transport Canada is of the view that deviating from the four-year time frame the FAA already codified is not warranted due to the now readily available CVR installation designs and parts.

Prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I

The amendments were prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on December 23, 2017, followed by a 30-day comment period. Two comments were received.

The first comment acknowledged and supported the decision of Transport Canada to exclude non-transport helicopters from the scope of the amended Regulations.
The second comment recommended a change to Standard 625 — Aircraft equipment and Maintenance of the General Operating and Flight Rules Standards, under Appendix C, item 15. In particular, it was recommended that the term “test procedure” for intelligibility checks undertaken during the routine maintenance of CVR and data-link records (DLR) be defined so as to limit access to CVR information for TSB accident investigation purposes only. Transport Canada carefully considered the comment and determined that it was beyond the scope of the current amendments. The amendments introduce new design and operational requirements, which do not affect the existing requirements contained in Standard 625, Appendix C. The intelligibility check of each CVR is conducted after a maintenance flight test has been undertaken and as a result, this procedure is not privy to conversations recorded on the CVR from a previous flight. Moreover, the privilege and privacy afforded to on-board recordings from the flight deck of an aircraft are governed and protected by the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.footnote 5

Rationale

The costs of $30,000 per CVR/RIPS unit and installation may be an overestimate for some types of aeroplanes. A transport category aeroplane manufacturer 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 will now meet its obligations as a member of ICAO. The amended Regulations will also minimize regulatory differences by aligning the CARs with the U.S. FAA standards in Title 14 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, although the FAA standards do not mandate the installation of RIPS on aircraft manufactured before the introduction of the ICAO standards. In addition, the TSB’s recommendations will now be satisfied and cost savings may be possible if an accident investigation were to take less time due to CVR and RIPS improvements. Fewer accidents may occur as the result of safety improvements made possible by accident investigation safety recommendations hinging on voice recordings from the increased CVR recording capability and RIPS.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

The implementation time frame is four years from the publication of the amended Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part II. The associated standards will be made available upon publication of the amended Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part II, and distributed to CARAC members. Oversight will be incorporated into the existing surveillance plans. These amendments will be enforced through the assessment of monetary penalties and any other applicable recourse under 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
Email: carrac@tc.gc.ca
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?

☐ Canada Gazette, Part I ☑ Canada Gazette, 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, Web sites)?

☑

☐

☐

Communication is made through Transport Canada’s CARAC process in which industry associations are informed, which 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 supplemental type certificate (STC) process.

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 is 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 will not depend on whether or not an aircraft is equipped with an updated CVR, however, with the ICAO alignment, it could be stated that trade will 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 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 Regulations — they are well served by the Northern Air Transport Association (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?

Use the Regulatory Cost Calculator to quantify and monetize administrative and compliance costs and include the completed calculator in your submission to TBS-RAS.

☑

☐

☐

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 a small business due to financial privacy or because they do not know what constitutes a small business as 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?

☑

☐

☐