Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I, III and VI – Helicopters and Rotorcraft): SOR/2022-267

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 156, Number 26

Registration
SOR/2022-267 December 7, 2022

AERONAUTICS ACT

P.C. 2022-1311 December 7, 2022

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, under 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, III and VI – Helicopters and Rotorcraft).

Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I, III and VI – Helicopters and Rotorcraft)

Amendments

1 The reference “Section 302.205” in column I of Subpart 2 of Part III of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Canadian Aviation Regulations ^{footnote 1} and the corresponding amounts in column II are repealed.

2 The reference “Subsection 305.10(3)” in column I of Subpart 5 of Part III of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations and the corresponding amounts in column II are repealed.

3 The reference “Section 305.19” in column I of Subpart 5 of Part III of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is replaced by “Subsection 305.19(1)”.

4 (1) The definition community organization in section 302.201 of the Regulations is repealed.

(2) The definition table top exercise in section 302.201 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

table top exercise

means an exercise requiring the participation of the organizations and other resources identified in an airport emergency plan to review and coordinate their respective roles, responsibilities and response actions without actually activating the plan. (exercice en salle)

5 (1) The portion of subsection 302.202(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (b) is replaced by the following:

302.202 (1) After consultation with a representative sample of the air operators that use the airport and with organizations that may be of assistance during emergency operations at the airport or in its vicinity, the operator of an airport shall have and maintain an emergency plan for the purpose of identifying

• (a) the emergencies that are likely to occur at the airport or in its vicinity and that could be a threat to the safety of persons or the operation of the airport;

(2) Paragraph 302.202(1)(c) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (c) the organizations capable of providing assistance in an emergency; and

(3) Subsection 302.202(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) The operator of an airport shall have and maintain a system of supervision and control that allows the operator to be able to manage the size and complexity of the emergencies referred to in paragraph (1)(a).

(4) Paragraphs 302.202(4)(a) and (b) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

• (a) review the emergency plan at least once a year after consultation with a representative sample of the air operators that use the airport and the organizations identified in the emergency plan; and
• (b) update the emergency plan as necessary to ensure its effectiveness in emergency operations.

6 (1) Paragraph 302.203(1)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (b) identify the organizations capable of providing assistance during an emergency at an airport or in its vicinity, provide the telephone numbers and other contact information for each organization and describe the type of assistance each can provide;

(2) Paragraph 302.203(1)(j) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (j) set out the measures to be taken to make the on-scene controller easily identifiable and reachable at all times by all persons responding to an emergency;

(3) Paragraph 302.203(1)(x) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (x) describe the procedures for preserving evidence as it relates to the removal of an aircraft or part of an aircraft;

(4) Subparagraph 302.203(1)(z)(ii) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (ii) the administrative procedure for the distribution of copies of an updated version of the emergency plan to the airport personnel who require them and to the organizations identified in the plan; and

(5) Paragraph 302.203(2)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (a) the signed agreements, if any, between the airport operator and the resources referred to in paragraph (1)(c); and

7 Section 302.205 of the Regulations is repealed.

8 (1) Paragraphs 302.207(2)(a) to (c) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

• (a) knowledgeable about the procedures for the overall coordination of emergency operations at an emergency site; and
• (b) trained for the particular role that they perform.

(2) Paragraph 302.207(3)(b) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (b) maintain the training records for three years after the day on which the training was received; and

9 Subsection 302.208(8) of the Regulations is repealed.

10 Paragraph 303.16(2)(b) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (b) keep the training record for three years after the day on which the aircraft firefighter leaves the service of the airport or aerodrome; and

11 Subsection 303.18(5) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(5) The operator of a designated airport or of a participating airport or aerodrome shall record the results of a response test and keep the record for two years after the date of the test.

12 The definition heliport operations manual or HOM in section 305.01 of the Regulations is repealed.

13 Section 305.08 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

305.08 (1) An applicant for a heliport certificate shall, with their application, submit to the Minister for approval a copy of a proposed heliport emergency response plan and a copy of a proposed heliport operations manual that describes

• (a) the manner in which the heliport meets the certification requirements set out in these Regulations; and
• (b) the physical characteristics of the heliport.

(2) The applicant shall include in the application

• (a) the heliport classification; and
• (b) proof that the applicant has consulted with the relevant local government authority relating to the proposed heliport and adjacent land.

(3) The Minister shall issue a heliport certificate to the applicant authorizing them to operate an aerodrome as a heliport if

• (a) the proposed heliport operations manual is approved by the Minister in accordance with subsection (5) and the applicant demonstrates to the Minister the ability to
  • (i) maintain an organizational structure in accordance with the requirements of the heliport operations manual, and
  • (ii) meet the operational requirements set out in their heliport operations manual; and
• (b) the proposed heliport emergency response plan meets the applicable requirements of section 305.45.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the applicant shall have

• (a) an organization capable of exercising heliport operational management; and
• (b) operational support services and equipment that meet the requirements set out in their heliport operations manual.

(5) The Minister shall approve the proposed heliport operations manual if it

• (a) accurately describes the physical characteristics of the heliport; and
• (b) meets the certification requirements set out in these Regulations.

(6) If a heliport does not meet a certification requirement set out in these Regulations, the Minister may specify replacement conditions to be included in the heliport operations manual that relate to the same subject matter as the unmet requirement and that are necessary to ensure an equivalent level of safety.

14 Section 305.10 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

305.10 (1) The holder of a heliport certificate shall ensure that the heliport meets the applicable requirements set out in these Regulations and in the applicable heliport standard.

(2) The holder of a heliport certificate shall

• (a) maintain the organizational structure referred to in subparagraph 305.08(3)(a)(i); and
• (b) notify the Minister within 10 working days after any change in its legal name, trade name or managerial personnel.

15 (1) Paragraph 305.18(1)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (a) provide the Minister with a copy of the heliport operations manual as approved under subsection 305.08(5) and any amendments to the manual approved under subsection (3); and

(2) Section 305.18 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) The Minister shall approve the amended heliport operations manual if it meets the requirements of subsection 305.08(5).

16 Section 305.19 of the Regulations is renumbered as subsection 305.19(1) and is amended by adding the following:

(2) The operator of a heliport shall review the heliport classification if there are changes to the obstacles at or in the vicinity of the heliport.

17 Subsection 305.45(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

305.45 (1) The operator of a heliport shall have a heliport emergency response plan available at the heliport.

18 Clause 305.54(1)(a)(i)(B) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(B) the heliport operator intends to submit to the Minister a request that a zoning regulation be made under the Aeronautics Act,

19 The portion of paragraph 305.55(b) of the Regulations before subparagraph (ii) is replaced by the following:

• (b) the following information relating to the administration of the heliport:
  • (i) a record of any amendments to the manual,

20 Section 601.17 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

601.17 (1) Section 601.15 does not apply to

• (a) persons who are operating an aircraft at the request of, or with the authorization of, an appropriate fire control authority for the purpose of assisting the fire control authority in the conduct of its operations;
• (b) persons who are operating an aircraft with the authorization of the Minister issued under subsection (2); or
• (c) Department of Transport personnel who are operating an aircraft in the performance of duties related to surveillance and the enforcement of aviation legislation.

(2) On receipt of an application in writing, the Minister shall issue a written authorization permitting the applicant to operate an aircraft if the Minister is of the opinion that operating the aircraft is necessary for the safety of the public or to support the operation of an aerodrome that is in or adjacent to the forest fire area.

(3) The Minister may specify conditions in the authorization governing the operation of the aircraft as are necessary for its safe and proper operation.

(4) No person shall operate an aircraft under the authorization unless the authorization is on board and the aircraft is operated in accordance with any conditions specified in the authorization.

21 Section 602.63 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (8):

(9) Paragraph (7)(a) does not apply if

• (a) the flight is necessary in order to respond to a medical emergency or any other emergency that is a threat to the safety of persons and
  • (i) the helicopter is a transport category rotorcraft, in respect of which a type certificate has been issued, that meets the requirements of Chapter 529 — Transport Category Rotorcraft of the Airworthiness Manual that are applicable to Category A rotorcraft,
  • (ii) there is insufficient time before the flight to acquire a helicopter passenger transportation suit system of the appropriate size for each passenger, and
  • (iii) there is a crew member in the cabin for the duration of the flight who is trained to assist passengers in an emergency evacuation in the event of a landing in water and who is able to come to the assistance of passengers; or
• (b) there is a medical reason that prevents a passenger from wearing a helicopter passenger transportation suit system.

(10) A passenger who is not wearing a helicopter passenger transportation suit system for a reason referred to in subparagraph (9)(a)(ii) or paragraph (9)(b) shall be provided with a life preserver and the pilot-in-command shall direct the passenger to wear the life preserver for the duration of the flight if they are physically and medically able to do so.

22 Subsection 602.64(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

602.64 (1) Subject to section 602.65, no person shall dispatch or conduct a take-off in a helicopter to conduct an offshore operations flight if the pilot-in-command or the air operator is aware that the sea state at any point along the planned route exceeds the sea state for which the helicopter is able to conduct a ditching, according to the type certificate issued for its type design.

23 Section 602.66 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

(1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply if

• (a) the flight is necessary in order to respond to a medical emergency or any other emergency that is a threat to the safety of persons and
  • (i) the helicopter is a transport category rotorcraft, in respect of which a type certificate has been issued, that meets the requirements of Chapter 529 — Transport Category Rotorcraft of the Airworthiness Manual that are applicable to Category A rotorcraft and in respect of which a type certificate has been issued,
  • (ii) before the flight,
    • (A) there is insufficient time to acquire a EUBA for all passengers, or
    • (B) the passengers have not received the training referred to in paragraph (1)(c), and
  • (iii) there is a crew member in the cabin for the duration of the flight who is trained to assist passengers in an emergency evacuation in the event of a landing in water and who is able to come to the assistance of passengers; or
• (b) there is a medical reason that prevents a passenger from wearing a EUBA.

(1.2) A passenger who is not wearing a EUBA for a reason referred to in subparagraph (1.1)(a)(ii) or paragraph (1.1)(b) shall be provided with a life preserver and the pilot-in-command shall direct the passenger to wear the life preserver for the duration of the flight if they are physically and medically able to do so.

24 (1) Subsection 605.35(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

605.35 (1) No person shall operate an aircraft, other than a balloon or glider, in transponder airspace, unless the aircraft is equipped with a transponder and automatic pressure-altitude reporting equipment.

(2) The portion of subsection 605.35(3) of the French version of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(3) Le paragraphe (1) ne s’applique pas à l’égard d’un aéronef dont le transpondeur et l’équipement de transmission automatique d’altitude-pression ne sont pas en état de service lorsque les conditions suivantes sont réunies :

(3) Section 605.35 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(4) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of an aircraft that is operated as part of a special aviation event without a serviceable transponder and automatic pressure-altitude reporting equipment if

• (a) the aircraft is within class A, B, C, D or E airspace; and
• (b) an air traffic control unit provides an air traffic control service in respect of that airspace.

Coming into Force

25 These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations (SJCSR) has indicated that certain requirements in the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) governing the operation of aircraft, heliports and airports are ambiguous, misleading, or redundant, and in some cases, inconsistent between the English and French versions. This could lead to misinterpretation of those requirements and, as a result, unintended non-compliance with the CARs.

TC has also identified certain provisions in the CARs that impede aircraft operations that are necessary for the safety and security of the community or unduly restrict special aviation events.

Airspace, general flight rules, and operations

Airport emergency plans

The SJCSR has identified ambiguities with existing requirements related to airport emergency plans that could be misleading or redundant. For example, the use of the terms, “organizations” and “community organizations” to describe entities that will participate in dealing with emergencies at the airport could create confusion among stakeholders. Also, it could be perceived as unclear whether the requirements regarding the development of an emergency plan happen before or after certification.

The requirement for airport operators to “establish a degree of supervision and control” necessary to manage the size and complexity of emergencies reasonably expected to occur at airports, does not reflect the policy intent of ensuring that operators “continuously maintain” the appropriate level of supervision and control. The use of “establish” may be interpreted as a one-time requirement on the part of the airport operators.

It is not sufficiently clear that the responsibility to update airport emergency plans lies solely with the airport operators. The existing requirement could be interpreted as assigning this responsibility to both the airport operators and the organizations identified in the airport’s emergency plan. While airport operators are required to consult with a representative sample of the air operators that use the airports and the organizations identified in the plan at least once a year, updating the plan after the annual consultation is solely the responsibility of airport operators.

The requirement to make the on-scene controller easily identifiable by persons responding to an emergency is vague about what needs to be done to meet the requirement.

The English and French versions of the requirement to identify the emergencies that can reasonably be expected to occur at the airport or in its vicinity are inconsistent. “Qui peuvent vraisemblablement se produire” is not precisely equivalent to the English “reasonably be expected to occur.” A more accurate French equivalent of the English is “qui sont susceptibles de se produire.”

The CARs require that any signed agreement between airport operators and organizations that provide emergency response services to the airport be included in the emergency plan. The CARs also require that contact information of “other resources” that could be a potential source of support during an emergency be included in the plan. However, there is no requirement to have the signed agreement (if any) with “other resources” included in the emergency plan. Having all agreements, including those with “other resources, included in the emergency plan will ensure that all parties are aware of the roles and responsibilities during an emergency.

The CARs require airport operators to assign the responsibility of being the on-scene controller or supervisor only to personnel who are (i) knowledgeable about the contents of an emergency plan; (ii) familiar with the procedures for the overall coordination of emergency operations at an emergency site; (iii) and are trained for that role. However, the terms “knowledgeable” and “familiar with” are not defined, and it is therefore not clear what criteria/qualifications are required to meet those requirements, or how being “knowledgeable” is different from being “familiar with.”

The use of “preserve” to require record keeping is inconsistent with terminology used in similar requirements in other provisions within the CARs. The term “keep” is the standard term used in the CARs for record keeping requirements. The use of inconsistent terminology for similar requirements could lead to misinterpretation.

Heliport certification

The SJCSR has identified ambiguities with existing requirements related to heliport certification. For example, the CARs require an applicant for a heliport certificate to ensure that the heliport meets the certification requirements and criteria set out in the CARs and the applicable heliport standard; however, there are currently no certification criteria in the CARs and the applicable standard. Only the certification requirements are only set out in the CARs.

The CARs outline the requirements that must be met by applicants in order to be issued a heliport certificate by the Minister of Transport (the Minister). The requirement for the Minister to issue a helicopter certificate if the applicant demonstrates the ability to conduct operations safely is redundant given that the other requirements in this section constitute what is needed to ensure operations are conducted in a safe manner.

The CARs do not specify when (i.e. before or after certification) an operator must have a heliport classification and an emergency plan.

The requirements respecting the approval of heliport operation manuals are not consistent with similar requirements for airports. The existing requirements do not clearly state the Minister’s authority to approve the heliport operation manuals and subsequent updates to the manual as is the case for the airport operation manuals.

The requirement for a heliport operator to determine and record in their operational manual the coordinates for the heliport reference point if they intend to have a zoning regulation made under the Aeronautics Act could be misinterpreted as meaning that the operator has the authority to directly request the Governor in Council (GIC) to make zoning regulations. In fact, only the Minister can recommend the making of such regulations to the GIC. A heliport operator can only submit a request for the making of zoning regulations to the Minister, who may, in turn, make a recommendation to the GIC.

While the French version of the CARs sets out an exhaustive list of the information to be included in a heliport operations manual, that is not the case with the English version, which includes the phrase “including but not limited to” before the list. This drafting inconsistency between the English and French versions of the CARs could lead to confusion. The French version is correct: the list should be understood as exhaustive. Therefore, the English text must be revised to align with the French version.

The requirement for a heliport operator to maintain a “copy” of all amendments to the heliport operations manual constitutes an unnecessary administrative burden and is not consistent with similar provisions in the CARs which require maintaining only a “record” of amendments to relevant documents. The policy intent behind this requirement is only for operators to maintain a record of amendments, not a copy of all amendments.

Requirements with respect to air operators

The SJCSR has identified requirements related to airport operations that are redundant. For example, the requirement for an airport operator to set out measures to be taken to make the on-scene controller easily identifiable by persons responding to an emergency appears in two separate provisions, making one of them redundant.

Further, the CARs require airport operators to describe the procedures for preserving evidence related to the site of an accident or incident. This requirement is also included in the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act (CTAISBA). As such, the requirement in the CARs constitutes an unnecessary duplication of what is already in the CTAISBA.

Another provision that was identified as redundant is the provision in subsection 302.208(8) that authorizes the Minister to observe the testing of an emergency plan. The power of the Minister to observe the testing of emergency plans is already established in paragraph 8.7(1)(a) of the Aeronautics Act.

Flight operation rules and airspace restrictions

TC has identified that some existing requirements related to airspace restrictions unnecessarily prohibit certain aircraft operations. These operations are necessary for the safety of communities in the vicinity of restricted airspace. Also, the SJCSR has identified an ambiguity with respect to the responsibility to conduct pre-flight and weather checks to ensure that the sea state level does not exceed the level for which the helicopter is certified.

The CARs grant access to certain aircraft operations over or within defined limits of a forest fire area or any airspace described in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) related to a forest fire. However, that access does not cover some aircraft operations that may be required for evacuations, or that are necessary for the safety and security of the community. Not allowing those essential aircraft operations within or around those restricted airspaces could impede and delay the evacuation of persons in an emergency.

The CARs prohibit aircraft operating without a functional transponder or automatic pressure-altitude reporting equipment from entering controlled airspace, which can prevent experimental and vintage aircraft without this equipment from participating in “special aviation events.” TC has determined that these aircraft can operate safely within controlled airspace if they are receiving support from Air Traffic Control.

The SJCSR has identified an ambiguity with respect to the requirement for the pilot-in-command or the air operator to prohibit a helicopter from being dispatched or cleared for take-off, if aware that the level of the sea state would exceed that for which the helicopter is certified. This could be misinterpreted to mean that both the air operator and the pilot-in-command are responsible for conducting the required pre-flight and weather checks. The responsibility to conduct the required pre-flight and weather checks belongs to the pilot-in-command alone.

Exemptions

Re-issuing exemptions upon their expiration is costly and time-consuming for TC. Exemptions from the CARs should only be issued for temporary situations where the exemption is in the public interest and is not likely to adversely affect aviation safety and security.

An existing exemption to the CARs is set to expire in 2025. This exemption permits air operators and their flight crew members to transport passengers, who are not wearing a helicopter passenger transportation suit and/or are not provided with an Emergency Underwater Breathing Apparatus, to or from an offshore location, if the flight is required for emergency, medical or lifesaving purposes. This exemption needs to be made permanent.

Background

The CARs outline the requirements that govern aviation in Canada. The CARs touch on all aspects of aviation, including requirements pertaining to aerodrome, airport, and heliport operations as well as requirements pertaining to helicopter operations.

TC’s Aviation Safety Regulatory Review initiative, which falls under the Civil Aviation component of TC’s Regulatory Review Roadmap (the Roadmap), aims to update and modernize the CARs so that they respond to the needs and emerging priorities of the aviation industry. The Roadmap responds to the Government’s 2018 commitment to undertake a targeted review of regulatory requirements and practices that are bottlenecks to innovation and growth in the Canadian transportation sector.

As a first step towards bringing the CARs up-to-date with continuous changes in the aviation industry, these amendments constitute one of many planned initiatives to address non-controversial irritants within the aviation sector from a list of over 1 700 irritants identified over the years by TC following internal and external consultations, and concerns raised by the SJCSR. The amendments will address longstanding issues governing the safe operation of aircraft (including helicopters), heliports, and airports in Canada.

As part of the Regulatory Review initiative, TC reviewed many irritants raised over the years by various sources, including SJCSR. TC’s review included validation of the issues raised, the development of proposed solutions, and appropriate consultations with industry. While most of the proposed amendments are administrative in nature (and, therefore, will not necessarily directly impact innovation and business investments), making the CARs clearer and removing redundant provisions are expected to improve clarity, efficiency, and predictability for industry stakeholders.

Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations

The SJCSR plays a vital role in the parliamentary oversight of federal regulations. Whenever Parliament delegates legislative authority to the executive branch or other regulation-making bodies, the SJCSR ensures that this delegated authority is exercised lawfully and appropriately.

A number of concerns were raised by the SJCSR over the years with respect to the regulatory provisions pertaining to airport emergency plans (Part III), heliport certification (Part III) as well as helicopter flight operations (Part VI). Most of the concerns raised relate to misleading wording or perceived ambiguity in specific provisions, as well as some inconsistencies between the English and French versions of the CARs.

Flight operation rules and airspace restrictions

Over the years, TC has identified shortcomings with regulatory requirements related to airspace management and general flight operation rules. Part VI of the CARs prescribes general safety rules under which an aircraft must be operated and flown. These rules include creating an airspace structure comprised of different classes of airspace and prescribing the types of operations allowed in each airspace; prohibiting certain aircraft operations in restricted airspaces, such as airspace over and around a forest fire area; and prescribing equipment requirements for aircraft operations in certain airspaces.

Exemptions

Subsection 5.9(2) of the Aeronautics Act provides the Minister with the authority to exempt any person, aeronautical product, aerodrome, facility, or service, or any class of persons, aeronautical products, aerodromes, facilities, or services, from the application of any regulation, order or security measure made pursuant to the Aeronautics Act if it is deemed to be in the public interest and is not likely to adversely affect aviation safety or security. In May 2020, TC issued an exemption for flights that are required for emergency, medical, or lifesaving purposes. The exemption permits air operators and their flight crew members to transport passengers who are not wearing a helicopter passenger transportation suit and or not provided with an Emergency Underwater Breathing Apparatus, to or from an offshore location. The exemption is set to expire and would be up for re-issuance in 2025.

Objective

The objectives of the amendments are to clarify requirements respecting the operation of heliports, airports and helicopter operations, which is expected to enhance the interpretation of, and compliance with, the CARs. The amendments also promote aircraft operations, such as “special aviation events” that are safe and have the potential to generate economic benefits, by removing restrictions around airspace and general flight rules operations. Finally, the amendments facilitate access to restricted airspace for aircraft operations necessary for maintaining public safety.

Description

The following amendments are being made to the CARs.

Airspace, general flight rules, and operations

Airport emergency plans

The following amendments clarify the intent of the regulatory provisions, eliminate redundancies, and align the English and French versions of the provisions pertaining to airport emergency planning:

• Repeal the definition of “community organization” in the interpretation section of subpart 2 of part III in favour of the more generic term “organization” which includes on-site, and external organizations involved in airport emergencies. Consequently, the term “community organization” is replaced with “organization” throughout the subpart. This amendment helps clarify who may be engaged in airport emergency planning.
• Replace “develop and maintain” with “have and maintain” in subsection 302.202(1) of the CARs. This amendment clarifies that the establishment of an emergency plan is a condition for issuing the operating certificate.
• Replace “establish a degree of supervision and control” with “maintain a degree of supervision and control” in subsection 302.202(2). This amendment clarifies that when applying for the issuance of an airport certificate, the operator must have, and always maintain, the level of supervision and control necessary to manage the size and complexity of emergencies that can reasonably be expected to occur at the airport.
• Reverse the order of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection 302.202(4) and amend paragraph (b) to require the airport operator to update the emergency plan, as necessary, to ensure that the plan remains effective. These amendments clarify that, while the airport operator is required to review the plan at least once a year (with a representative sample of the air operators that use the airport and the organizations identified in the plan), it is solely the responsibility of the airport operator to update the emergency plan, as necessary, to ensure effectiveness in emergency operations.
• Replace the phrase “qui peuvent vraisemblablement se produire” with “qui sont susceptibles de se produire” in the French version of paragraph 302.202(1)(a), which requires that airport operators identify the emergencies that can reasonably be expected to occur at the airport or in its vicinity. This amendment aligns the French text with the English equivalent and thereby ensures clarity and consistency.
• Remove the phrase “at the airport and the community organizations” from the requirement in paragraph 302.203(1)(b) that airport operators identify organizations capable of assisting during an emergency at the airport and in its vicinity. This amendment aligns with the decision to use the term “organization” in a general sense to include all organizations (inside and outside the airport) that may respond to an emergency at the airport.
• Specify in paragraph 302.203(1)(j) that an airport operator must set out in an emergency plan the physical and communication measures to be taken. This amendment ensures that the on-scene controller will be easily identifiable and “reachable” at all times by all persons responding to an emergency.
• Repeal the requirement in subparagraph 302.203(1)(x)(ii) for the airport operator to describe the procedures for preserving evidence as it relates to the site of an accident or incident, according to the CTAISBA.
• Add in paragraph 302.203(2)(a) the requirement for an airport emergency plan to include a copy of agreements between the operator and “other resources” whose contact information is included in the plan in accordance with paragraph 302.203(1)(c) of the CARs. Having all agreements included in the emergency plan ensures that all parties are aware of the roles and responsibilities during an emergency.
• Repeal section 302.205, which requires the airport operator to establish procedures that make the on-scene controller easily identifiable by all persons responding to an emergency plan. This provision is redundant given that paragraph 302.203(1)(j) requires the same thing.
• Clarify the required competencies of personnel assigned emergency response duties, other than those of an on-scene controller or supervisor in paragraphs 302.207(2)(a) to (c). This amendment emphasizes the need for personnel to be knowledgeable of the procedures for the overall coordination of emergency operations at the emergency site and to be trained for the particular role they will be required to play.
• Replace “preserve” with “keep” in paragraph 302.207(3)(b) to be consistent with other terminology used in the CARs. The same amendments are made to paragraph 303.16(2)(b) and subsection 303.18(5).
• Repeal subsection 302.208(8) that authorizes the Minister to observe the testing of an emergency plan. This provision is redundant given that paragraph 8.7(1)(a) of the Aeronautics Act already provides the Minister with the authority to observe the testing of emergency plans.

Heliport certification

The following amendments address ambiguities with existing requirements related to heliport certification:

• Revise paragraph 305.08(1)(b) and subsection 305.10(1) to clarify that the certification of heliports is based solely on certification requirements set out in the CARs.
• Repeal the requirements in paragraph 305.08(2)(c) and subsection 305.10(3) for a heliport operator to conduct operations safely. The SJCSR has characterized these requirements as subjective, difficult to enforce, and redundant given that the intent of the CARs is to promote safe operations. Repealing these requirements also means that the administrative monetary penalties for non-compliance with these requirements are also repealed.
• Add the heliport classification and emergency response plan to the list of documents a heliport operator must submit when applying for certification. This amendment clarifies when the operator of a heliport is required to establish the heliport’s classification and emergency response plan.

Requirements with respect to air operators

The following amendments deal with the content and approval of a heliport operations manual:

• Add a new provision under section 305.18 to explicitly reflect the Minister’s authority, and current practice, to approve a revised heliport operations manual when the certification requirements in the CARs are met. This amendment clarifies that any revisions to the originally approved heliport operations manual must be submitted to the Minister for approval. This brings the requirement in line with similar requirements for airport operations manuals.
• Modify clause 305.54(1)(a)(i)(B) to reflect the fact that a heliport operator can only submit a request for the making of zoning regulations to the Minister, who may, in turn, recommend such action to the GIC who has the power to make such regulations. This amendment clarifies that only the Minister can recommend the making of zoning regulations to the GIC.
• Align the lists of information items that must be included in the heliport operations manual under subsection 305.55(b) in both the English and the French versions of the CARs. The list should be considered exhaustive as is the case in the existing French version. This amendment ensures consistency between the English and French versions of the CARs.
• Replace the requirement in subparagraph 305.55(b)(i) to maintain a “copy” with a requirement to maintain a “record” of all amendments to the heliport operations manual. This amendment enhances consistency with similar requirements for airport operators.

Flight operation rules and airspace restrictions

The exception in section 601.17 to restricted aircraft operations over or within certain limits of a forest fire area, or any airspace described in a NOTAM related to a forest fire, is amended so that it applies to persons who are operating an aircraft with a written authorization from the Minister or an authorization from an appropriate fire control authority. This amendment facilitates access to aircraft participating in air transport or evacuation operations, necessary for the safety and security of a community.

The exceptions in section 605.35 to restricted aircraft operations in controlled airspace are amended so that they also apply to aircraft operating without a functional transponder or automatic pressure-altitude reporting equipment as long as they are involved in “special aviation events” and are receiving support from Air Traffic Control.

The requirements in subsection 602.64(1) around offshore flight operations are amended by removing the phrase “during the pre-flight check required under section 602.71 or the weather check required under section 602.72.” This change clarifies that the air operator is not responsible for conducting the checks required under sections 602.71 and 602.72 of the CARs. Only pilots are required to conduct those checks. However, air operators are still prohibited from dispatching a flight if they become aware that the level of the sea state would exceed that for which the helicopter is certified.

Codify exemption

Sections 602.63 and 602.66 of the CARs are amended to codify the exemption permitting air operators and their flight crew members to transport passengers who are not wearing a helicopter passenger transportation suit and/or not provided with an Emergency Underwater Breathing Apparatus, to or from an offshore location, if the flight is required for emergency, medical or lifesaving purposes. This amendment eliminates the need to renew the existing exemption when it expires.

Regulatory development

Consultation

In 2021, a task team consisting of industry and TC subject matter experts was established to review issues with, and proposed solutions to, regulatory requirements for the safe operation of aircraft (including helicopters), heliports and airports in Canada. Industry stakeholders included members from the Ottawa, Edmonton, Montréal, and Vancouver Airport Authorities, as well as managers and consultants from the Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service Air Ambulance, Helijet International Inc., and RGHeliservices. Members of the task team reviewed the issues and proposed solutions and discussed various scenarios to ensure that there would be no unintended impacts resulting from the proposed solutions. The amendments included in this regulatory proposal are the result of the task team exercise.

On February 17, 2022, a Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) was distributed through the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC) Activity Reporting System for consultation, which gave civil aviation stakeholders the opportunity to review the proposed amendments and provide comments by March 21, 2022. Two stakeholders provided comments in support of the changes and requested some clarifications.

The first comment sought clarification with respect to the requirement to include agreements between airport operators and “other resources” in the airport emergency response plan. They wanted to know if this meant that the establishment of agreements with “other resources” was mandatory. TC clarified that the requirement is applicable to existing agreements and any future agreements the airport operator chooses to establish. The change does not make the establishment of an agreement with other resources mandatory.

The second comment expressed support for the expansion of the exceptions in section 601.17 of the CARs to allow persons who have received the permission of the Minister to conduct aircraft operations over or within certain limits of a forest fire area. The stakeholder questioned whether the amendments would also specify the types of operations that could be authorized with the permission of the Minister. TC indicated that it would adopt a performance-based approach by not specifying the type of operations in the CARs but would develop guidance material to assist in the decision-making process. The comment also questioned whether the amendments to 601.17 would expand the area under existing forest fire aircraft operating restrictions. TC clarified that the amendments will not affect the airspace under existing forest fire aircraft operating restrictions.

Exemption from prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I

The amendments included in this proposal make minor corrections to the CARs that are mostly administrative in nature and are not expected to result in significant costs or negative impacts on the regulated community. Stakeholders have been consulted about the amendments and have not raised significant concerns or objections. Therefore, the amendments were not prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, an analysis was undertaken to determine whether the amendments are likely to give rise to modern treaty obligations. The assessment examined the geographic scope and subject matter of the amendments in relation to modern treaties in effect and after examination, no implications or impacts on modern treaties were identified.

Instrument choice

Regulatory amendments are required to address the SJCSR’s concerns and ensure that the CARs are clear, consistent, and accurate. Given that most of the amendments are intended to facilitate the interpretation of existing regulatory requirements, facilitate access to certain airspaces, and relax certain equipment requirements (such as the wearing of Emergency Underwater Breathing Apparatus) for flights required for emergency, medical or lifesaving purposes, amending the CARs was deemed to be the most effective way of resolving the identified issues. Furthermore, given that the issues raised by the SJCSR are technical and administrative issues affecting existing requirements in the CARs, they must be dealt with through regulatory amendments. No non-regulatory options were considered.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

The amendments are administrative in nature: clarifying regulatory text, removing redundant provisions, correcting inconsistencies between the French and English versions, facilitating certain flight operations, and codifying a recurrent global exemption. There will be minor cost savings realized by the Government of $4,125, as well as minor administrative costs to industry of $592. The total estimated net benefit of these amendments is therefore expected to be $3,533, which corresponds to a benefit-cost ratio of 6.97.

Analytical framework

All benefits and costs figures provided in this section, unless otherwise noted, are expressed in present value 2022 dollars over a 10-year analytical time frame (2022–2031), using a 2022 base year and a 7% discount rate. The costs and benefits for these amendments have been assessed in accordance with the TBS Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis by comparing the baseline against the regulatory scenario.

In the baseline scenario, in which the amendments are not published, it is anticipated that TC would continue to issue exemptions every five years. Further, it is expected that airports would not include copies of existing agreements within their airport emergency plans. In the regulatory scenario, in which the amendments are enacted, the exemptions in question would be codified into the CARs and TC could use those resources elsewhere. On the industry side, over the first year after the publication of the amendments, airports would update their emergency plans to include existing agreements.

Benefits

These amendments will yield government cost savings as TC will no longer need to process and issue an exemption related to Emergency Underwater Breathing Apparatus use. Given the past effort required when reissuing an exemption, removing the need to reissue will result in an undiscounted cost savings of $2,950 per codified exemption. This estimate represents the value including overhead of the time taken by various TC employees when issuing an exemption. Without these amendments, this exemption will need to be re-issued every five years, or twice (in 2025 and 2030) over the analytical time frame. In total, this will result in present value cost savings of $4,125.

Economic benefits could be realized by allowing aircraft without a functional transponder or automatic pressure-altitude reporting equipment to participate in “special aviation events,” as long as they are receiving support from Air Traffic Control. There could also be safety benefits realized by allowing aircraft participating in air transport or evacuation operations to access the area of a forest fire with the Minister’s permission. Due to uncertainty around how many flights could potentially benefit from these amendments, these benefits are not monetized within this analysis.

Costs

The only new requirement to industry that will carry costs is the amendment to paragraph 302.203(2)(a) of the CARs, which requires an airport emergency plan to include a copy of existing agreements between the airport operator and “other resources.” This effort will occur during each airport’s annual review of emergency plans, throughout the first year of the analytical time frame. As this amendment simply requires an additional copy of the agreements to be made, the incremental cost pertaining to this amendment is estimated to be roughly $2 per airport, which corresponds to the paper it is printed on and the added time (5 minutes) for employees to make the copy and add it to the plan. The wage including overhead is assumed to be $23. Based on the National Aviation Company Information System, it is estimated that 296 airports will be impacted by these amendments. The total present value cost is therefore projected to be $592 for all of industry.

Small business lens

Analysis under the small business lens concluded that the amendments will impact businesses, some of which may be considered small businesses. Given the very limited cost to these businesses ($2), no further flexibilities were considered.

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule applies since there is an incremental increase in administrative burden on business, and the proposal is considered a burden in under the rule. No regulatory titles are repealed or introduced.

As described in more detail in the “Costs” section above, an estimated 296 airports will incur an estimated $2 cost associated with including a copy of existing agreements between the airport operator and “other resources” in their airport emergency plan. After discounting this cost to 2012, the total annualized cost will be $34, and the annualized cost per business will be $0.12.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The amendments are not related to any commitment under a formal regulatory cooperation forum nor are they intended to address non-alignment with other jurisdictions.

Strategic environmental assessment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, a preliminary scan concluded that a strategic environmental assessment is not required.

Gender-based analysis plus

A gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) assessment was conducted to determine whether the regulatory amendments would have differential impacts on the basis of identity factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. The assessment determined that, given their administrative nature, the amendments would not result in any disproportionate impacts on any group of persons based on identity factors.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

The amendments come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

These amendments address simple and non-controversial issues with the safe operation of aircraft (including helicopters) and aerodromes (e.g. heliports and airports) in Canada. Most of the amendments clarify regulatory requirements and, therefore, do not require a change in existing implementation and enforcement procedures but rather enhance compliance by increasing industry’s understanding of what is required of them to maintain a safe air transportation service.

Upon the coming into force of the amendments, the exemption to sections 602.63 and 602.66 of the CARs enabling air operators and their flight crew members to transport passengers, who are not wearing a helicopter passenger transportation suit and or not provided with an Emergency Underwater Breathing Apparatus, to or from an offshore location, if the flight is required for emergency, medical or lifesaving purposes will be cancelled.

Airports will be expected to update their emergency plans to include a copy of existing agreements between the airport operator and “other resources” as part of their annual review/update of emergency plans, as required by subsection 302.202(4) of the CARs. As a result, airports will transition towards compliance over the first year after publication of the Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

Stakeholders will be notified of the amendments and of their coming into force through the CARAC process once the amendments are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

The guidance material related to the amendments to section 601.17 of the CARs has been developed and will be made available at the next update of the Aeronautical Information Manual.

Compliance and enforcement

TC will continue to enforce compliance with the CARs through the assessment of administrative monetary penalties for contravention of designated provisions under sections 7.6 to 8.2 of the Aeronautics Act, which carries a maximum fine of $5,000 for individuals and $25,000 for corporations; or through suspension or cancellation of a Canadian aviation document pursuant to sections 6.9, 7 or 7.1 of the Aeronautics Act, or as applicable, proceeding by way of summary conviction, pursuant to section 7.3 of the Aeronautics Act.

Contact

Hani Atallah
Acting Chief, Regulatory Review (AARKC)
Civil Aviation
Safety and Security Group
Transport Canada
Place de Ville, Tower C
330 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Telephone: 613‑543‑3619
Email: carrac@tc.gc.ca
Website: www.tc.gc.ca