Talk:Pilot licensing in Canada

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pilot licensing in Canada article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spelling of the title

The word may be spelled as "licencing" or "licensing". As per the Wikipedia style guidelines, I am using "licensing" as that is what is being used in Canada, in particular the CARs. Likewise, the CARs spell the word as "licence" and "licences" as opposed to "license" and "licenses". I will use the word as it is used in the CARs. : Icitrom 00:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Night rating

Sanchom, yes I concur with your changes for the experience part of night rating. I was thinking about how to include that information without bogging down the text. FYI: My personal goal is to make this article complete and useful for people and to decipher the CARs. But, at the same time not to repeat the CARs wholesale. With repect to the experience sections, I was thinking that some kind of graphic would be useful, perhaps a Venn diagram or something similar. I don't like text for explaining the experience requirements. I tried re-wording the CARs to give me less of a headache (:-)) when trying to figure just what is required. Icitrom 13:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venn diagrams! Yes. That's a good idea. I use something like that when explaining licencing requirements. Sancho McCann 14:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I researched Venn diagrams as well as other types of diagrams. With the number of possible permutations, showing the experience requirements graphically alluded to diagrams that made me dizzy. Right now, I do not see how to show the experience requirements as a graphic. If someone else would want to give it a try maybe they'd have more success. Icitrom 05:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal rules

Use of horizontal rules: I added in some horizontal rules (HR). I added the HRs in between subsections of a subsection where the normal Wiki styles do not provide for an HR under the section heading. I took a look with and without and I believe the page is better with them. For example, the Ratings subsection is quite long with all of the different ratings and I find looks better with the HRs. Icitrom 04:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To-do

TO DO: Costs of licences, permits, ratings, examinations, and flight test: The info is here. Icitrom 22:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cost varies significantly from place to place, depends on the type of school (i.e. club or college) and changes over time as gas prices, etc go up and down. Not a worthwhile use of time, in my opinionHiFlyChick (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is very similar to the issue of aircraft operating costs which are also not recommended in aircraft articles for much that same reasons that you have noted here. - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean the costs of flight training. I meant the costs of the artefacts associated with pilot licensing, such as the fees for the various permits, licences and medical certificates. Also, taking an exam with Transport Canada also has fees attached. I didn't mean the amounts you have to pay to a flight school, for example. Yes, of course, that would be placed in an article about flight training in Canada. --Icitrom (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TO DO: Incorporate experience credits. Icitrom 10:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TO DO: In each permit and licence section, incorporate which ratings apply. Icitrom 10:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TO DO: Which permits and licences can a seaplane rating endorse?? Icitrom 03:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

I'm going to give this article the benefit of the doubt and rate it B, although it desperately needs a cleanup and any reviewer who wants to demote this to Start Class is more than welcome to. I have assessed this as low importance, as this is a highly specialized topic within Canada. Cheers, CP 02:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CP, could you give me a few more words. I'm not sure what you mean by "benefit of the doubt". Also, "desperately needs a cleanup" in what way? A point in the right direction would be helpful. I don't mean the standards themselves. I am aware of them. I thought I had been following Wiki standards, so I don't know to what you are referring. "Desperately" implies to me that a lot is wrong in terms of style.Icitrom 23:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glider License

I am considering moving the sections in this article dealing with glider licensing to the following: Glider Pilot License. Does anyone have any comments? RP459 (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting proposal. I would suggest that this article remain a complete catalog of Canadian licences and that the Glider pilot license article have a summary of Canadian requirements with a {{main|Pilot licensing in Canada}} tag to refer back to this. Otherwise this article could be gutted over time. - Ahunt (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, I will start with doing gexactly that. RP459 (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will watch and help out where I can! - Ahunt (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with Ahunt--Icitrom (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as too long

I disagree. This is not one big long narrative article where the criticism would perhaps make sense. It's a catalog. There is more than enough navigation on the page to jump around as needed. Very few people will use this article to just sit down and read it as they would an article on some topic in political science, for example.

How does this issue get resolved? --Icitrom (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the greater problem is that the article is ridiculous mess and violates about half the WP:MOS. I suggest before even looking at splitting it it needs a total clean-up, reorganization and the replacement of all the external links scattered though it with proper footnotes. Perhaps then, once that is all done, we can look at what is left and whether it needs splitting. Splitting it now would result in multiple messes instead of just one. I may have some time later on today to do some work on it.- Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have had a detailed read through this article. My assessment is that it is far too long to be an encyclopedia article, but that said, I don't believe it should be split. The article has too much detail on medical requirements, minimum ages for application and other non-encyclopedic minutia. It has essentially duplicated the entire contents of CAR 421. The aim of this article should be to provide information on the subject for non-technical readers (i.e not pilots) who want an overview of the subject. Persons who are applying for a licence or permit need to read the CARs, not Wikipedia, although this should point them to the right place in the CARS through the refs cited. As it is this article suffers greatly from WP:NOTMANUAL. I believe all the details need to be removed until what we have left is a summary and overview of Canadian licences available. If there are no objections I will start in on this in the next few days, by doing one section first, posting a note here and then see if there are any comments. - Ahunt (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay after much agonizing over how to tackle this mess I have made some cuts to Pilot_licensing_in_Canada#Student_pilot_permit as a start. - Ahunt (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been totally overhauled - length fixed, excessive wording reduced, incorrect information removed, information cut and pasted from the CARs removed, footnotes added, tags removed and some images added, too to make it less dull. - Ahunt (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks awesome! RP459 (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking for the minutes of the CARAC meeting where TC indicated they intend to rescind the Rec Helicopter permit from the CARs. The minutes normally are available on line and I was at the meeting where this was discussed and consensus was achieved to do so - just have to find the minutes! - Ahunt (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know I have seen something to that effect outside of Wikipedia also, but it was a while ago, if I have some time I will do some digging also. RP459 (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would help! - Ahunt (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that my brown belt in Google-foo has failed me. I can find no reference online that TC is planning on rescinding the rec permit helicopter, which is frustrating because I know that they are... Also the indentation of this conversation is starting to become silly :) RP459 (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a very careful search too and haven't found it. I wish I had the date for the CARAC meeting, but it looks like it didn't make it into the decision record whenever it was or I would have found it. I woukd suggest leaving the sentence in the article and sooner or later TC will put up an NPA to do it and then we can cite it.- Ahunt (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, someday TC will add it into a proposed change for the CARS and it can be ref'd then. RP459 (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobatic Rating

The article claims that there is no aerobatic rating in Canada. From the main article:

Aerobatic rating

There is no aerobatic rating in Canada.[4]

[4] is a citation for a URL ( http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part4/401.htm ). Yet, when you visit the URL you see the following (long quote):

DIVISION XXII - FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR RATING - AEROPLANE - AEROBATIC
Rating
401.91 The Minister shall endorse a commercial pilot licence - aeroplane
or an airline transport pilot licence - aeroplane with a Class 1 or Class
2 flight instructor rating - aeroplane - aerobatic if the applicant for the
rating meets the requirements referred to in Section 401.06.
Class 2 Rating - Privileges
401.92 The holder of a Class 2 flight instructor rating - aeroplane - aerobatic may
(a) conduct flight instruction in the performance of aerobatic manoeuvres; and
(b) certify a licensed pilot's personal log with respect to competency to perform
    aerobatic manoeuvres.
Class 1 Rating - Privileges
401.93 The holder of a Class 1 flight instructor rating - aeroplane - aerobatic
may
(a) exercise the privileges of a Class 2 flight instructor rating - aeroplane
    - aerobatic;
(b) provide ground school and flight instruction in respect of the endorsement
    of a licence with a flight instructor rating - aeroplane - aerobatic; and
(c) recommend a trainee for a flight test in respect of the endorsement of the
    trainee's licence with a flight instructor rating - aeroplane - aerobatic.

DIVISION XXIII - FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR RATING - GLIDER - AEROBATIC
Rating
401.94 The Minister shall endorse a licence endorsed with a flight instructor
rating - glider with a flight instructor rating - glider - aerobatic if the
applicant for the flight instructor rating - glider - aerobatic meets the
requirements referred to in Section 401.06.
Privileges
401.95 The holder of a flight instructor rating - glider - aerobatic may
(a) provide, in a glider, flight instruction in the performance of aerobatic
    manoeuvres;
(b) provide dual flight instruction to the holder of a flight instructor rating
    - glider in respect of the endorsement of the holder's licence with an
    aerobatic rating - glider; and
(c) recommend the holder of a flight instructor rating - glider for the
    endorsement of an aerobatic rating - glider on the holder's licence.

So there clearly is an aerobatics rating in Canada. I'm new to wiki, don't know what to do, and don't want to break anything. Can someone fix this? Thanks :)

SubtractM (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is correct as it is currently written. There is no rating required to perform aerobatics in Canada, but there is one required to teach aerobatics - this is clearly spelled out in the two sections on this, although I can make it even clearer. - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Officer Endorsements?

I've never heard of a "second officer" endorsement for a commerical/ATPL-aeroplane licence. Maybe you are meaning First officer?

No aircraft I've seen has needed a 3rd person (Second Officer) for years and years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.161.243 (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See CAR 401.52 SECOND OFFICER RATING - Ahunt (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are still plenty of aircraft flying that require a second officer. Older 747s for instance, some of the larger Russian airliners, plus many non-airliner aircraft being used in specialised areas can have a second officer. Canterbury Tail talk 01:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pilot licensing in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]