Government of Canada navigation bar

Symbol of the Government of Canada

Primary site navigation bar

Amendment 1-3 (1988-91)

CAT and TATC Decision Amendments

Aeronautics Indexes

Services

CAT File No. W-0119-01

CIVIL AVIATION TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

Stephen William Watson

- and -

Minister of Transport

C.R.C., c. 2, s. 517(c)

Acrobatic flying

It was alleged that the pilot operated an aircraft in acrobatic flight without authority. The Minister suspended the pilot's licence for a period of 7 days.

On review, it was held that the identity of the pilot was not proven at the time and date of the alleged contravention. The case was dismissed.

REVIEW DETERMINATION Jenson

April 8, 1991
Edmonton, Alberta

For reasons given, I grant full relief from the Minister's penalty of licence suspension.

Background and Overview

Mr. Stephen William Watson was charged under section 517(c) of the Air Regulations in that on the 20th day of August 1990, he operated aircraft C-GVZU in acrobatic flight in the Villeneuve Aerobatic Box for which he was alleged to have had no authority. Mr. Watson did have authority from the Minister to operate aircraft registered to Ville Air Services Ltd., Ville Tech Inc. and Watson Flight Centre in acrobatic flight in controlled airspace. A Kim A. Maier Super Acro Zenith, which is the aircraft in question, C-GVZU, was registered to Stephen Watson.

Agreement of Fact

In the matter of Civil Aviation Tribunal Review Hearing, Mr. Stephen William Watson, applicant, vs. Minister of Transport, respondent, to be heard on the 28th of March 1991, in Edmonton, Alberta, dealing with the alleged violation of section 517(c) of the Air Regulations, the following elements of the law are accepted as undisputed fact in this case.

1. That aircraft, registration C-GVZU, a Kim A. Maier Super Acro Zenith is indeed an aircraft as defined in the Aeronautics Act, and was registered to Stephen William Watson, as a private aircraft during the alleged violation on the 20th of August 1990.

2. That the "Villeneuve Aerobatic Box" is located within controlled airspace, as defined by the Minister.

Signature Date

Conclusion and Reasons for Decision

After careful consideration and weighing all the factors in this review hearing I have granted full relief from the Minister's penalty of licence suspension for the following reasons:

  • Inspector Ribout who was a witness for the Minister classified as an expert in acrobatic flight, was not absolutely sure it was Stephen Watson flying C-GVZU at the time and date of the alleged contravention.
  • The voices on the tape transcribed from the Villeneuve tower (exhibit C) were not positively identified.
  • Watson Flight Centre has no legal standing by itself. Any assets of Watson Flight Center must in law be owned by the person behind Watson Flight Center which is Stephen Watson. Aircraft C-GVZU registered to Stephen Watson is the same as an aircraft registered to Watson Flight Center or vice-versa. A good example of this is liability. If ever there is a claim by law against Watson Flight Center there is no question this would flow directly to Stephen Watson.
  • In exhibit D the written authorization to the entity Watson Flight Center would flow to Stephen Watson.
  • I did not see any evidence that the written authorization to conduct acrobatics in the approved aerobatics box at Villeneuve was either cancelled or suspended.
  • There was no evidence of any deliberate misrepresentation.
Date modified:
2010-03-31