INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section excludes aircraft that derive support from reactions against the surface of the earth from the definition of aircraft.
SECTION WORDING
214 In this Part, "aircraft" does not include a machine designed to derive support in the atmosphere primarily from reactions against the earth’s surface of air expelled from the machine;
EXPLANATION
Section 214 of the Criminal Code of Canada defines the term 'aircraft' in relation to this Part of the code. The Part in question primarily deals with offences related to aviation and aircraft, and therefore, an accurate definition of the term is essential. According to this section, an aircraft does not include any machine that is primarily designed to derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions against the earth's surface of air expelled from the machine. This provision is crucial in interpreting other sections of the code, as it exempts certain types of machines from being classified as aircraft. For instance, a hovercraft, which relies on air expelled from the machine to stay above the ground, would not fall under this definition. Similarly, gliders and certain types of balloons that do not have engines but derive support from the atmosphere would also be exempted from the classification of aircraft. This section is important as it helps to avoid confusion in the application of other provisions of the code, such as those relating to unlawful interference with aircraft or reckless endangerment of life in or around aircraft. It also serves to ensure consistency in the interpretation of aviation-related laws across different jurisdictions in Canada. In summary, Section 214 of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an important definition of 'aircraft' that is necessary for the proper interpretation and application of other provisions of the code. This section ensures that only machines that are designed to fly or travel through the air in a specific manner are considered aircraft, while other machines that derive support from the atmosphere in a different manner are excluded from this definition.
COMMENTARY
Section 214 of the Criminal Code of Canada is a relatively brief but critical provision, particularly in the context of aviation law. The provision defines the scope of aircraft in the Canadian legal system and specifies what kinds of machines are excluded from this definition. This definition is significant because it shapes the legal framework that governs aviation law in Canada, and can have implications for safety, liability, and regulatory oversight. To fully understand the implications of Section 214, it is important to have a clear understanding of its language and intent. The key phrase in this section is "aircraft does not include a machine designed to derive support in the atmosphere primarily from reactions against the earth's surface of air expelled from the machine." Essentially, this means that any machine that relies primarily on downward-facing air propulsion, rather than lift-based propulsion like a conventional airplane, is not considered an aircraft under Canadian law. The most common example of such machines would be hovercraft or flying cars, which rely on thrust to generate lift and stay in the air. Section 214 excludes these machines from the category of aircraft, which can have significant implications for their legal treatment. For instance, if a hovercraft were involved in an accident, it may not be subject to the same aviation safety regulations as conventional aircraft, nor would it necessarily be subject to civil aviation liability rules. The interpretation of Section 214 is not without controversy, however. Some legal scholars have argued that it is unclear whether the provision applies only to machines that rely solely on downward thrust for lift, or whether it also includes machines that might use a combination of lift-based and thrust-based propulsion. This could have implications for emerging technologies such as drones or electrically powered aircraft, which may use a mix of propulsion systems to stay aloft. Furthermore, one can argue that excluding machines like flying cars or hovercraft from the category of aircraft raises questions about their safety and oversight. While such machines may not be subject to the same regulations as conventional aircraft, they are still capable of causing serious harm if they malfunction or are operated recklessly. The exclusion of these machines from the scope of aviation law could create a regulatory gap that might put the public at risk. In conclusion, Section 214 of the Criminal Code of Canada is a critical provision that defines the scope of what is considered an aircraft in the country's legal system. While the exclusion of certain types of machines like hovercraft or flying cars from this definition can have implications for the legal treatment of such machines, it also raises questions about safety and regulatory oversight. As new technologies continue to emerge, it will be important to revisit and clarify the scope of this provision to ensure that the law remains relevant and effective in regulating aviation in Canada.
STRATEGY
Section 214 of the Criminal Code of Canada defines the term "aircraft" for the purposes of the Part dealing with offences related to aviation. The section notes that machines that primarily derive support from reactions against the earth's surface of air expelled from the machine are not considered aircraft. This excludes things like hovercraft and ground-effect vehicles from being classified as aircraft in relation to specific offences. When dealing with Section 214 of the Criminal Code, strategic considerations will largely depend on the specific context in which the section is relevant. Some potential strategies that could be employed include: 1. Defence strategy: If a person has been charged with an aviation-related offence, they may be able to argue that the vehicle they used was not an aircraft as defined in Section 214. This argument would require showing that the vehicle was primarily supported by air expelled from the machine rather than by lift generated by wings or rotors. If successful, this defence could result in the charges being dismissed. 2. Prosecution strategy: On the other hand, if the prosecution is bringing charges related to aviation, they may wish to ensure that any machines in question meet the definition of aircraft in Section 214. This would require investigating the design and operation of the vehicle to determine whether it primarily relies on air expelled from the machine or on lift generated by other means. 3. Legislative strategy: Lawmakers may also consider the implications of Section 214 when drafting or amending aviation-related laws. For example, if hovercraft or ground-effect vehicles are included in the definition of aircraft for a particular offence, this could have unintended consequences. Lawmakers may wish to consider whether certain vehicles should be explicitly excluded from the definition of aircraft for specific purposes. 4. Regulatory strategy: Finally, regulators may need to take into account the implications of Section 214 when developing rules or guidelines for the operation of different types of vehicles. For example, if certain vehicles are not classified as aircraft under the Criminal Code, they may be subject to different safety requirements or licensing procedures than other aviation-related vehicles. Overall, the strategic considerations related to Section 214 of the Criminal Code will largely depend on the specific context in which the section is relevant. However, by carefully considering the definition of aircraft outlined in this section and developing appropriate strategies, stakeholders can ensure that they are in compliance with the law and operating safely and effectively.