Non-instructor Trial flights

[Vector Victor]

My school has recently started to routinely use the desk staff to perform Trial flights. These people are good pilots, but are basic PPL's and have no form of commercial licence or instructors rating.

The school says that they are just keeping people flying when the instructors are busy. But they are telling instructors who are paid by the day and hour not to come in to work and letting the salaried desk staff perform the flying instead.

Is this normal practice with flying schools and is it legal ?
Having just spent £5k on an instructors rating I hope this isn't the norm !

[jsf]

If you give a trial lesson then there must be a qualified instructor giving the lesson.

If the trial flight does not involve the passenger manipulating the controls ie a pleasure flight, then the flying school would need to have an AOC as this would be a pleasure trip. As such if the pilot was being paid for doing the trip, even if his pay was as a desk clerk then he would need to hold the appropriate licence. That would be a CPL.

The only way a PPL can take passengers for pleasure is if he is paying for a proportion of the flight. If he has two passengers then he must pay one third of the price of the trip to stay legal.

If the school has no instructors available and no AOC then the aircraft should stay on the ground.

If I'm wrong then I've just wasted a shed load of money over the last three years getting a CPL/IR and instructor rating.

Please let me know!

[IRRenewal]

It is not normal and it is not legal.

Regards

Gerard

[DFC]

Not normal.

Not legal.

Not what you should put up with.

Make an MOR or CHIRP report.

If the school is cutting corners like that on flying, what corners are they cutting on maintenance?

I'd be looking for employment elsewhere ASAP.

Remember that most trial lessons are booked and paid for well in advance - Vouchers, promotions, red letter days, birthday present for dad etc. Thus the money is in the Bank. If there is no instructor available, then the customer/ student will come back another day because they have already paid.

One thing that will ensure they don't come back to your school for the rest of a PPL course is a poor trial lesson with someone who can't instruct.

Best of luck.

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

Vector victor, I hope that the school in question stops this illegal public transport activity before this thread attracts the attention of the CAA's Enforcement Branch.... As it surely will.

[Whirlybird]

I hope that the school in question stops this illegal public transport activity before this thread attracts the attention of the CAA's Enforcement Branch.... As it surely will.

And as it should! I don't always agree with the CAA or the regulations, but people having flying lessons, trial or otherwise, have a right to be taught by a qualified instructor.

[mysteryshopper]

If the "student" went on to do their PPL they would not be able to log the flight. Bad news for them.

If the student did log the flight, I'd love to know what they wrote under PIC...

Assuming the student logged the ops desk member as PIC, what would the CAA do if they inspected the logbooks of PPL applicants and found a PPL holder (without FI rating) in the PIC column? Do they check or just check the CFI's signature confirming the correctness of the entries?

Hmmm...

Assuming this school does these flights regularly do you think they would have any problem operating a trial lesson from an unlicensed aerodrome/runway?

I know of one school that does this. Is this acceptable or does it fall into the same category?

Food for thought.

[DFC]

Mysteryshopper,

It would also be illegal to operate the trial lesson from an unlicensed airfield (unless for example it is a microlight).

As an industry, we need to ensure that operators like the one described are stopped ASAP. Otherwise we risk not having an industry at all.

Regards,

DFC

[homeguard]

The consquences for a non instructor undertaking Trial Flights is very serious indeed.

The Trial flight or Air Experience Flight is a recognised lesson within the PPL syllabus. The effect on the non-instructor is for him/her to be construed as an individual masquerading as an Instructor.

It matters not whether the student/passenger touched the controls or not. It is fraud, dangerous and highly illegal and worse for the non-instructor unlawful.

The result for one individual not too many years ago was not a fine plus costs, but prison! It is that serious.

You would do well by the individuals concerned to at least make them AWARE of what they could be letting themselves in for.

[mad_jock]

I have heard of some schools using trial flights as the 5 hours mutial for the FIC and thougt it dodgy as hell.

But PPL's taking EX3's up no way.

Give Beagle or any one here a PM and we will get it sorted through unoffical channels.

They are not insured, not licensed and if SRG foundout they would really throw the book at them. It is a complete abuse of there staff and customers. And to be honest i have heard the CAA is looking to make Trial flights subject to A to A AOC regulations anyway and are only waiting for the first crash to mandate it. This would screw most schools and does nobody any favours.

MJ

[TOT]

Are we talking about helicopters or aeroplanes???

There is also a well known helicopter company where an office members "checks" out students for their 30 day club check/rule with no instructor rating!!!

[Daysleeper]

where an office members "checks" out students for their 30 day club check/rule with no instructor rating!!!

While unwise that particular activity is not illegal. Unlike using a ppl holder for "trial flying lessons" ie EX3.
As mad jock points out if they are unbothered by the CAA then they should be terrified of their insurer.

[mad_jock]

PPl's doing check rides is legal and they are also insured to do so.

The only probem that may occur is if the person being checked is outside the 90day rule. If the check is say a 28day check the pilot just logs it as PIC. If outside 90days the pilot doing the checking must be PIC otherwise they are breaking 90day rule. Because only one person can log the time and it can't be PICUS or PUT. And then they have to do 3 circuits solo. So its more effective to just do it with an instructor.
This is only really an issue with night checkouts.

Funny issue with the night stuff is that instructor student combinations are allowed while both are out on the 90day rule.
Apparantly Instructor, student are counted as crew not Instructor and pax.

Also to cover your arse its proberly best if there logbook is anotated that they have been checked out in the RHS.

[BEagle]

What on earth sort of a 'check ride' can a non-FI PPL holder possibly give? He/she is only permitted to fly private flights or non-remunerated flight instruction if his/her licence also includes a FI rating.

I can accept the concept of someone briefing another pilot on the vagaries of a specific aircraft's foibles - but as for conducting 'recency checks', that's very dubious. The P1C should be a CRI at the very least, I would reason...

On another score, it seems that there is the odd place where 'aerobatic experience' trial lessons are being conducted by FIs who haven't had their 'no aerobatic instruction' restrictions removed. That's possibly acceptable if it's a 'pleasure flight' being conducted by an AOC-holding commercial organisation with properly licensed pilots - but with enthusiastic and unqualified FIs at a basic RF/FTO? Definitely not!

[Bottle Fatigue]

Beagle,

You've confused me a little there.

Is it not legal for a FI without the aerobatic restriction removed to demonstrate an aerobatic manoeuvre to a student? I realise that he/she couldn't teach or sign anybody off for aerobatics, but I had thought that a demonstration would be within the rules.

BF

[Say again s l o w l y]

Vector Victor, I hope you pass on the details of this school to either SRG or somebody here what is occuring is totally illegal and potentially lethal.

As for the instruction in aeros, as long as the FI is just demonstrating manouevers, then it is perfectly acceptable as long as they are competent, but if they are actually teaching, then I would argue that this is not acceptable. This does then get into the AOC issue.

M_J is correct in that a lot of clubs allow competent club members to conduct certain checks on other PPL's, but they cannot log it or get paid for it obviously. It is also done very regularily in private owner groups.

[BEagle]

For what purpose would such a 'demonstration' be given? If you're flying a student on an instructional flight and 'demonstrate' an aerobatic manouevre then you are definitely imparting an element of aerobatic instruction. If you have a 'No aerobatic instruction' restriction on your FI rating, you are clearly operating outisde the privileges of your rating. Take this to the extreme by advertising 'aerobatic trial flights' with a 'no aerobatics' FI 'demonstrating' aerobatics to the trial flight 'students' and you're talking about glorified (and illegal) pleasure flights.... And what 'competence' would such an FI ever have demonstrated of his/her ability to perform aerobatics safely - and to whom?

If you want to show off your aerobatics to a student, then without the appropriate FI rating you will have to cost share on an agreed private flight - which, of course, the student will not be able to log.

If you want to have the restriction removed from your FI rating, you'll need to complete at least 5 hours of aerobatics flight training and 8 hours of theoretical training in accordance with a recognised syllabus at an approved FIC FTO under an FIC Instructor qualified to conduct aerobatics training and then obtain a recommendation from the FIC Instructor for the removal of the restriction.

[mad_jock]

The check flights I have seen using a PPL are only paper exercises if someone has gone out of the club rules not the CAA ones.

And they are only given if the FI is busy and the person being checked is a known good pilot who regularly flys but for some reason is a couple of days out. The PPL's who did them were all old salts who went solo before i was born.

Known twats don't get this option.

MJ

[BEagle]

Oh really. Have these 'old salts' ever held any flight instructional qualification of any shape or form?

Sounds like a highly dubious state of affairs to me - commercial expediency at the expense of safety regulation.

More intersting reading for our friends down at the Belgrano. On the basis of this thread, the enforcement branch are soon going to be very busy people indeed, I would imagine......

[mad_jock]

Its pretty standard BEagle. In fact some private owners groups have people listed on the insurance who can do the check rides.

There is not alot SRG can do about it because its not breaking any rules in the ANO. The pilots are all still within the legal currency limits they are only out on unoffical club regs. So as far as the rule book goes the other PPL is just a PAX. If the pilot owned there own plane they would have just of gone flying.

It is more of an insurance thing than anything else. I know my last full time instructors postion the schools insurance said that anyone was allowed to fly the plane with the permission of the CFI so he made the rules on who can do the check rides. I have seen other cover which has stated a 28day limit on PPL's and no limits on CPL holders and named pilots or FI's can carry out the check rides.

The local plane which has this cover the pilots listed 1 of them has a NPPL and 1000hrs and the other has PPL with 600 hours. All they did was send a photo copy of the last page of there log book and a copy of the front page of thier license. Having the 28day limit saved them 300 quid a year

In the 6 schools I have flown/ worked at in the UK its been SOP if there isn't a FI available. And 2 of those schools had CAAFU's as members who where present when a PPL-PPL check flight occured.

MJ

[Airbedane]

Aerobatic Instruction:

It's an interesting anomalie, one of many in our licensing system. As there is no aerobatic raing, there is no rating to each it, therefore the CAA use the 'no aerobatic instruction' limitation route. Which means that any FI can teach aerobatics, provided they are not renumerated for it - if they receive payment, they must have the restriction removed. This is unacceptable and unsafe in my opinion, but that's the way it is!

On another subject, there are routes to renumerated check flying without the appropriate rating, but to do so, it is essential to have the CAA on board and have an appropiate exemption issued. However, the CAA will not issue an exemption if the work could be carried out by an existing AOC holder, or qualified FI, say.

e.g. - a non-related exmple: if an aerial phot was required from. say, a C152, there are enough public transport C152 operators to do the job via there AOC organisations. On the other hand, if the picture needed a Miles Magister wing in the foreground, then a Miles Magister owner could apply for permission to carry out a renumerated flight in his aircraft. There are other examples of renumerated flying and training done in a similar way on permit aicraft, by non-FI's and non-commercial pilots.

However, non of this exonerates the actions of the 'Club' that started this thread. What they are doing is wrong, illegal and irresponsible.

A

[BEagle]

I can understand that private owner groups may have their own agreements concerning mutual flying, but that's a whole different kettle of fish to a PPL holder carrying out a 'currency' check on another club member.

What does your so-called 28-day currency check ride consist of? One pilot demonstrating competency to another? If so, what criteria does the 'check pilot' use to assess this competency if he is not a trained FI? If Clubs want to make up their own rules concerning recency, then the requirement for a pilot out of 'Club recency' to be 'checked' means that he can only be checked by someone trained to assess flying standards. Otherwise it's totally meaningless. Hence I contend that your 'check rides' may only be conducted by a CRI or FI - not just by a 'nominated PPL holder' with no formal qualification. Even the PFA has had to accept that its 'coaches' must now be formally qualified CRIs.

Let's say pilot A wants to hire an ac from a Club. He arrives and is told that he cannot fly unless he takes pilot B (a non-CRI/FI PPL holder) with him. It is, therefore, a condition of the flight that pilot B flies. But in what capacity? What happens if he doesn't like something pilot A (the Commander) does? He is only a passenger and cannot dictate any part of the flight to pilot A. If they agree to share the flying, then each must pay 50% of the hire fee; if pilot B does not pay for his fraction of the flight cost, then he is receiving 'payment in kind' - free flying. That is illegal.

Incidentally, MJ, there is no such thing as CAAFU - and hasn't been for many years.

Airbedane - the 'No aerobatics' limitation does not refer merely to remunerated flight instruction, it refers to any aerobatic instruction. One is a condition of the rating, the other is a licence privilege. So no, a FI with the 'No aerobatics' restriction may not teach aerobatics.

As you rightly say, there are indeed a number of 'special condition' flights for which permission may be sought from the CAA; they will assess the application and agree the relevant conditions. Which is entirely as it should be!

[FlyingForFun]

The check flights I have seen using a PPL are only paper exercises if someone has gone out of the club rules not the CAA onesCan the Chief Flying Instructor, or his deputy, not use his discretion in this case and allow someone who has just gone out of the club rules (but obviously not the CAA ones) to fly anyway? This certainly happens at my club - several times when I've gone out of the club currency rules I've been "signed off" by instructors, without them actually having to fly with me.

As for the legalities, if an "office member" who is employed by the club is asked, as part of his responsibilities during his working hours, to fly, surely he would need at the very least a CPL?

FFF
---------------

[mad_jock]

And what training in the FI course is there for a 225(hr) restricted Instructor to pass fail someones flying, none. There is so much variation within the UK of what is acceptable and what isn't. And the more experenced the instructor the lower the standard needs to be. Personally I would have liked a demo of what acceptable and what isn't, I will freely admit that in the early days I was way to harsh. Before starting to teach I think I was in a plane for 2 landings made by low hour PPL's I didn't have a clue what was normal. I only knew what i would be happy with or not (which was higher standard than your average PPL) . Have to watch we don't get sidelined into the 1 hour with an instructor debate again.

You might not like it, but i should imagine that over 50% of the clubs in the UK have this practise. It is legal, it is done.
And in your example Pilot A logs it as PIC pilot B dosn't. Because they are inside te 90day rule so legal to be PIC pilot B It is only there because the CFI requires it, his/her rules he/she gets to choose who does the check.

As for the great CAAFU debate, the gentelmen in question introduce themselves as CAAFU, and it is generally accepted if you say CAAFU it is the gods who do first time IR's. A bit like the rest of the UK using QFI to mean unrestricted instructor much to the ex mil peoples annoyance.


MJ

[Say again s l o w l y]

There is no need to cost share as the pilot do the 'checking' is acting as a passenger, NOT as another pilot.

I have to agree again with M_J, what training do FI's get as examiners? None, yet we are asked to perform this duty on a regular basis. (insert standard arguement about the one hour revalidation flight.) As you get more experienced then you understand what is and isn't acceptable, but at first you are left to blindly feel your way.

Personally my standards in respect to certain things are very harsh, far more than other FI's in the club, but in turn they have other areas that they believe are more important.
Who's correct? I will argue black and blue for my points and they will do the same.

Beagle I would love to instruct in your world where everything is black and white, but in most clubs this is not the case. Since we get no real direction from any source, we all seem to do things differently and interpret the 'rules' in different ways. (for example I disagree with your use of PICUS rather than P/UT, my interpretation is the opposite.)

How do you define aerobatic instruction? In fact how do you define instruction at all? Training for the issue of a licence. As there is no aerobatic 'licence' as such what are you teaching it for? I would hate to see anybody doing aeros when they are not in current practice, and since most newly minted 200Hr FI's have probably never done more than an hour of aeros', then they should in no way be attempting manouevers or routines especially with a student on board.
How can you then justify teaching full spins, when there is now no requirement to do so? Could this not be counted as aerobatic? Wingovers, Lazy 8's, Loops or Rolls. The arguement could be that you are demonstrating the capabilities of the a/c to help breed some confidence in the machine.
I am an aero's instructor and find this very useful on occasion through the PPL course not just when going through the AOPA certificate course.

[Vector Victor]

Thanks for the replies.

Despite attempts to persuade me otherwise, I admit that I had an inkling that these trial flights were illegal.
My intention was to find out how normal / widespread / acceptable that this practice was. I am still of the opinion that this sort of thing must happen at alot more schools than appears to be the case on here so far.

My first objection to the situation is a financial one. Our instructors are losing out on pay and flight time. Trial flights are paid for in advance and if there is no legitimate instructor available then they should be postponed, as they do due to the british weather. If these flights are carried out by the salaried desk staff, the school saves £15 per flight. If an instructor is told not to come in to work then they save an extra £10 per day.

Whilst most trial flights are a birthday present for little jonny, they are Exercise 3 of the training syllabus and must therefore be carried out by an instructor. This bit is clear cut.

As for new member check outs, PPL currency checks, differences training, aerobatics training and type conversions e.t.c. This is probably more of a grey area. I admit that I am not certain of the exact regulations and it appears from other posts that it is wholly dependent on the club in question.
I have a feeling that club rules and pilot order books everywhere have received little updating over the years and might need reviewing to make sure they conform with current regulations.

I have of course raised the issue of these flights at the school and have been met with responses from complete apathy to "I didn't know they weren't an instructor". I will push the issue further with the school (at a bit of a career risk !). I will not be pursuing the matter with anyone outside of the school. If there is no satisfactory conclusion, I will just walk away from the organisation with my feelings well known to all at the school.

Thanks again for your inputs and I really do hope this situation isn't as widespread as I first thought. I do not want to attract negative attention to the industry or the attention of the Belgrano (though a memo arriving on the door mat of all flying schools clarifying the situation and outlining consequences for non-compliance might be welcome !).

[Say again s l o w l y]

Vector if you walk away without doing anything about it, then shame on you. I congratulate you for trying to fix the problem internally, but if that fails then it is your duty to do the right thing. That is to inform SRG. This can be done confidentially and it will then be in their hands to 'fix' the problem.
We all rely on others professionalism, if you walk and then somebody is injured or even killed, then you will be responsible to a certain degree. By not 'squealing' then you are allowing this to happen. Does this sound like a professional attitude?

This sort of shoddy management deserves to be squashed and never allowed near aviation again. If you are not sure exactly what to do, then contact any of us here. I'm sure anyone would be willing to give some support, as this is never an easy thing to do.

Good luck, I'm sure you will do the right thing.

[BEagle]

Are you really saying that you received no instruction on student fault analysis during your FI courses? I find that very hard to believe.

My example of cost sharing was based on shared flying, not flying as a passenger. The CFI cannot decide which non-CRI/FI PPL pilot can conduct these 28 day flights no matter how dictatorial he wishes to be.

Quite simple - any additional Club recency requirements must be conducted by a CRI at the very least. Not merely by some unqualified PPL holder who happens to be thought of in high esteem by the CFI.

For example, we have a 42 day recency rule and an annual Club check rule. But those outside 42 day recency or needing to fly an annual Club check may only operate the ac with a FI acting as Commander.

I've discussed with others and they are equally adamant that the use of unqualified PPL holders as 'check pilots' is wholly unacceptable except within the agreed procedures of a private owner group.

[Whirlybird]

BEagle,

With all due respect, you are not being logical.

Instructing has rules and regulations made by the CAA, and we're all agreed about the original question on this thread.

Club check-outs are a different matter. They are the concern of the club, school, aircraft owner, and/or insurance company. They concern a pilot who can legally fly, as far as the CAA is concerned! Therefore, whatever makes the club, insurance company etc happy is OK. If not, then why not?

Now consider the pilot doing the check-out. He/she is a passenger, no more or less. If I personally ask a friend to come flying with me as a safety pilot because I'm a bit rusty, and so that he/she can keep an eye on what I do, that person is a passenger. They aren't paid, they don't log it, and they aren't getting any flying, free or otherwise. They might tell me to keep my airspeed up, or similar, or even suggest I go out with an instructor, but that's all. I do this regularly, since as a helicopter pilot my f/w flying is frequently a bit rusty. Now, if the club etc privately trusts this person enough to let a pilot fly their aircraft on his say-so, that is a purely internal matter. The CAA would have been happy to let the pilot fly in the first place!!!

Perhaps the term "check-out" is causing the problem. Because while I respect your opinions and value your experience usually, BEagle, I really cannot for the life of me see why you have a problem with this!!! Legally, that is. If you have a problem personally - well, that's another matter, and you're quite entitled to your opinion. But I don't see any way that it can be considered illegal. :confused: :confused: :confused:

[FlyingForFun]

Whirly,

I agree with your argument.... except on one point. If you personally ask a friend to go flying with you because you're a bit rusty, that's a private flight. But that's not what we're talking about here. We are talking about an employee of the club being asked, as part of his job, to go flying. Surely that's illegal unless the person in question has a CPL?

FFF
-----------

[Say again s l o w l y]

BEagle, fault analysis is one thing, but knowing what the acceptable standard in all areas of flight is totally different. FI's are not examiners and have to rely on their own standards as to what is acceptable. Yes it is laid down in respect to test standards, but nothing prepares you for flying with all ready qualified pilots who may or may not be totally competent. You have to rely on your own judgement, which is fine if you are experienced, but just like M_J when started instructing, the only experience I had was from a commercial school. I soon found that my standards were not feasible with people who flew on a very limited basis.

FFF, If you get paid/renumerated in any way for a flight then you should hold either BCPL, CPL or an instructor rating (in Heli's).

If the person does not log the flight, then they are not getting any benefit, therefore as long as you are within the statutory minimums of currency, then you don't have to have an FI sitting next to you.

Whirly has it right in my mind when she says that maybe the term 'checkout' is causing the problems. It is not a check, BEagle is quite right when he states that only an FI should conduct this, but having a safety pilot 'just in case.'

Whilst I think that this is highly dangerous, it is not against any rules that I am aware of. The captain/commander of any flight must be obvious, easy with an FI on board as it is always you, but to have two similarily qualified and experienced pilots on board is a recipe for disaster in the event of any emergency.

[Whirlybird]

FFF,

The flying club employee is being asked to be a PASSENGER with a qualified pilot doing the flying. The employee is then being asked his opinion of that person's flying. Now, you, BEagle, SAS, the CAA, or anyone else, may not think this is a particularly good idea. But I can't see how it can be ILLEGAL.

Personally, if my flying is a bit rusty I like someone else there, since two heads are better than one. Not two sets of hands and feet - as SAS says, that's not a good idea - just two heads. Someone to remind me of things if all doesn't go according to plan and I get a bit over-loaded. In my albeit fairly limited experience, what usually happens under such conditions is that I'm a bit behind the aircraft, and tend to forget things like radio calls. Having another pilot to monitor things can make all the difference needed.

[BEagle]

It is illegal if it is a condition of a private flight that a particular passenger must be carried. Thus "Would you mind taking Fred with you" is fine, but "You must take Joe with you" is clearly not. Which would appear to be the case here.

[long final]

But it is only a 'condition' set by a club, maybe with an agreement with the insurance company. But as long as the insurance company is aware and happy it is not illegal.

[BEagle]

In which case whichever club official decided upon this policy is complicit in facilitating an illegal public transport activity. The insurer's position is nihil ad rem .

Face it - there are sufficient properly qualified flight instructors around to meet any conceivable club recency requirement. Whether the club is prepared to provide sufficient properly qualified people to support its self-imposed requirements is clearly another matter with clear commercial considerations.

In other words, do it properly or don't do it at all!

[long final]

As far as a club official being ‘complicit in facilitating an illegal public transport activity’, I don’t get your point. If said club official decides that those are the rules for the club, then those are the rules. If you don’t like the rules, find a club that doesn’t have them.

Quote:

‘ I can understand that private owner groups may have their own agreements concerning mutual flying, but that's a whole different kettle of fish to a PPL holder carrying out a 'currency' check on another club member’ - How is this any different to the issue here? – ‘In other words, do it properly or don't do it at all!’ ??

As regards the insurers position being nothing to the point, I would be interested to know if clubs do have an agreement for ‘currency’ tied to the policy.

I personally agree with you that instructors should be used, but find your argument that the policy is illegal lacking.

[bookworm]

It is illegal if it is a condition of a private flight that a particular passenger must be carried.

I don't think it is. Not unless a payment is made for the carriage of that passenger.

But it would be illegal if the check-pilot were paid to conduct the check. That doesn't mean that they have to be paid by the hour -- most commercial pilots aren't! If checking out other pilots were part of the job description of the employee of a flying club, I think that would make it aerial work, for which a CPL would be required.

The captain/commander of any flight must be obvious, easy with an FI on board as it is always you, but to have two similarily qualified and experienced pilots on board is a recipe for disaster in the event of any emergency.

I think there's a strong argument for agreeing who is PIC before any flight on which two pilots sit at the controls, regardless of the qualifications of those on board.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I will not be pursuing the matter with anyone outside of the school. At the risk of stating the melodramatic obvious, if you did nothing to stop it and some poor sod got hurt on one of these illegal flights you'd feel how about your part in covering it up exactly?

[mad_jock]

The discussion with BEagle about PPL's checking each other for non manditory (under ANO regs) club checks which are imposed by the CFI as a condition of renting an aircraft from its owner. Conducted without payment (apart from solo hire), by 2 people. Which can be waivered by the CFI if he chooses ( I didn't have a check ride after not flying a SEP for 100days but when I went up I was solo so it was legal and I was insured) is diluting the main issue here.

The taking of Ex 3's by PPL's is not under discussion. It is definatly illegal and has the potential to ruin alot of lives and may be also have some pretty horrible effects for the industry as a whole.
CHIRP it or whatever. Just get it stopped. I know it is hard at this stage in your career but unfortunatly its one of these things that needs something done.

Just remember in a few months time you may meet someones mother walking down the road with a bunch of flowers, she bought her kid a trial flight for his 16th birthday. Kid never made 17...... True he is more likely to be run over but you can't do anything to stop that. You can stop an unqualified pilot commit fraud by gaining the trust of a member of the public by prentending to be a commercial pilot who is qualified as an instrucor.

MJ

And BEagle no i didn't get any training or any ground school in what the required standards are. And after discussing it at work today with others that hold or have held an instructors rating they wern't either. In fact none of us had even been sat down by the CFI during the restricted period.

[Whirlybird]

It is illegal if it is a condition of a private flight that a particular passenger must be carried. Thus "Would you mind taking Fred with you" is fine, but "You must take Joe with you" is clearly not. Which would appear to be the case here


Really? Where is that stated? Suppose I offer to let you fly my aircraft if you take my sister with you, since she fancies a flight, and I have a cold. Is that illegal? Suppose a school says a PPL can do a repositioning flight if he gives someone a lift to wherever it's going. Is that illegal? No-one is being paid in either of these cases.

And if any of the above are illegal, could you please tell me where that rule is.

[mad_jock]

Or even to keep Flying schools out of the equation.

PPL holder takes a plane for a mate to be serviced. 2 hours flying without paying anything.

Arguing with FI's isn't going to change anything its the CFI's in the schools who make the rules not us. .

The flying order book states that these people can do it, all we can presume is that the ops inspector who signed them off last check knows what they are talking about.

MJ

PS why don't you contact someone in the belgrano and get them to send a notice out to all CFI's. Its alot better than trying to convince aload of under payed FI's they should go and tell there boss he is talking ****e

[DFC]

MJ,

Going back to your statement regarding the 90 day rule. There is no requirement for the pilot who "needs the practice" to log anything other than the fact that they completed 3 take-offs and landings. Thus another PPL (who could be say the owner of the aircraft) can sit in the right seat and log the flight as P1. The only requirements are that a) The non-current pilot was the "sole manipulator of the controls" and that the "Owner" was not paid for sitting in the right seat.

---

As for aerobatic instruction - Beagle may be barking up the wrong tree unless it is known that the FI providing the said aerobatic instructional flight has a UK licence. People who hold JAA licences from other countries do not have a "no aerobatic instruction" restriction. However, one would have to say that any FI worth their salt would not consider teaching an aerobatic course unless the had completed the required training. But a one-off trial lesson may be something different (provided that they can do safe aerobatics) subject to insurance limitations.

PPLs doing Club checkouts is very much dependent on the individual club set-up. Beagle agrees that in a multi-owner group, there is no problem.

I believe that the only problems arrise in a "Club" environment. "Club" being the profit making commercial enterprise version of a club found in the UK.

In the UK "Club" the aircraft are operated for profit. If pilot X is not current then they are unable to fly. Thus the club can not profit. If the CFI tells a PPL to fly with pilot X then the club is making a profit from that PPL's flying (even if it is as a passenger). That makes it public transport and illegal.

Another way to look at the checkout regardless of the "club" set-up is - Can one seriously make a club rule that a pilot is not competent to fly the aircraft if they have not flown during the previous 28 days - then turn round and send them flying with a passenger? Clearly, the two are not compatible.

Regards,

DFC

[Ice Man]

Vector Victor,

As an experienced Instructor/Examiner and having several years ago set up and run my own sizeable Flying School, I am appalled.

The Owner/Operator does not deserve to be in business. Please do the right thing and call the CAA on 01293-567171. Ask to speak to training standards and the inspector who checks this School.

Mad Jock made a very good point about the Insurance aspect. If non qualified personel are carrying out trial lessons it's simple. THERE IS NO INSURANCE!.

It is your duty to protect the public from this type of operator, or you may have to live with your conscience should an accident arise

[Whirlybird]

In the UK "Club" the aircraft are operated for profit. If pilot X is not current then they are unable to fly. Thus the club can not profit. If the CFI tells a PPL to fly with pilot X then the club is making a profit from that PPL's flying (even if it is as a passenger). That makes it public transport and illegal.


But we aren't discussing pilots who are non-current legally. We're discussing pilots who haven't flown for a bit, who the club or insurance company requires to fly with a safety pilot for their own private reasons. The PPL who is the safety pilot is a passenger. And nowhere have I seen it stated that passengers can't be paid. It's no different to my offering you an aerial lift to London, if you need to get there for your work, and your company paying you an hourly rate while you're travelling. Or, for an even more precise analogy, you offer to let me fly you to London in your aircraft, the condition being that I give you the lift.


Another way to look at the checkout regardless of the "club" set-up is - Can one seriously make a club rule that a pilot is not competent to fly the aircraft if they have not flown during the previous 28 days - then turn round and send them flying with a passenger? Clearly, the two are not compatible.

No, in theory they're not. But in practice those pilots who haven't flown for 28 days comprise everyone from very new PPLs to people who've been flying for years. For instance, just after I finished my CPL(H) flying course I ended up not flying for 5 weeks. Was I seriously non-current, after over 100 rotary flying hours in a year, finishing with an intensive course and test? But the club's insurance rules were that I had to fly with an instructor before I could self-fly hire. So if the CFI and/or insurance allow such people to fly with a "passenger" just to check that things are OK, it sounds like common sense to me. Now of course, that could be mis-used, but that's not the point.

Let's not mix up two issues here. Sending pilots who haven't flown for a while up with another PPL may or may not be sensible. But to repeat myself, I SIMPLY CANNOT SEE HOW IT CAN BE ILLEGAL. And if it is, I want to know where I can see that in writing.

[BEagle]

See the ANO Section 1 Part XI:


valuable consideration which falls within paragraph (10)(b);
is a contribution to the direct costs of the flight otherwise payable by the pilot in command; and
(ii) (aa) no more than 4 persons (including the pilot) are carried on such a flight;
(bb) the proportion which such contribution bears to the total direct costs of the flight shall not exceed the proportion which the number of persons carried on the flight (excluding the pilot) bears to the number of persons carried on the flight (including the pilot);
(cc) no information concerning the flight shall have been published or advertised prior to the commencement of the flight other than, in the case of an aircraft operated by a flying club, advertising wholly within the premises of such a flying club in which case all the persons carried on such a flight who are aged 18 years or over shall be members of that
flying club; and

(dd) no person acting as a pilot on such a flight shall be employed as a pilot by or be a party to a contract for the provision of services as a pilot with the operator of the aircraft being flown on the flight.

There's a lot more, suggest you download CAP393 in .pdf format from the CAA website. If there are 4 of you including the pilot flying on a private flight, the passengers may cost share but between them must pay no more than 3/4 of the direct costs. So you can't get the 3 of them to pay 1/3 of the cost each, for example, with the pilot paying nothing. Para (dd) could perhaps be taken to apply to the non-FI/CRI PPL holder 'conducting' the 'check' in that he/she must be 'acting as a pilot' because he/she has been selected as such by the CFI in order to conduct the 'check'. It might therefore be construed that he is acting as a party to an implied contract for the provision of the service of a check pilot with the operator of the aircraft (the hirer) being flown on the flight.

But then again, it may not.

Far better to stay totally legal rather than sailing into muddy and unclear waters; if you use only authorised FIs for the purpose of any check ride - whether mandatory or voluntary - you will avoid any possible doubt.

Back to the thread, the illegal public transport activities of the club referred to in the original post must not be allowed to continue. You must make those involved realise this.

[mad_jock]

Its a sticky one that DFC.

You have to have logged 3 landings in the last 90days to carry pax.

So if the pilot went up solo no probs they are P1.

If the owner insisted they wanted to see the pilot fly yes the owner then logs P1 and checks the pilot out to there satisfaction. The legalitys of this are under discussion in fact its worse because the owner will presumably charge full whack to the pilot which means they aren't sharing the costs etc. But unless the owner of the plane is a FI the pilot cannot log this session at all. Which means the pilot dosn't have 3 takeoffs and landings logged. So they then must go up solo to log the P1 to meet this requirement.

MJ

[bookworm]

(dd) no person acting as a pilot on such a flight shall be employed as a pilot by or be a party to a contract for the provision of services as a pilot with the operator of the aircraft being flown on the flight.

BEagle

The para you quote is tacked on to the exclusion which allows cost sharing for private flights. Since no cost sharing is taking place for the checkride in question -- the renter is PIC and pays the cost of the flight in full, carrying the check pilot for free -- (dd) is not relevant.

I don't think there's any doubt that if the check pilot holds a CPL (with or without FI rating) then the check ride is legal. Likewise, if the check pilot holds a PPL and is not paid, directly or indirectly, for the flight. The sticky area is where the check pilot holds a PPL and is employed by the club, and therefore it could be argued that he is receiving remuneration for the flight.

The paragraph (dd) above is required to prevent the following situation: A club rents out a PA28 for £200/hr, to be shared between 4 occupants. The PIC happens to be an instructor employed by the club, and receives remuneration of £70/hr for making the flight, but pays £50/hr, his 25% contribution to cost of the flight. Et voila: air taxi operation by the back door... :)

Of course none of this affects the status of trial lessons by non-instructors (CPL or not) which are clearly illegal before they leave the starting gate.

[BEagle]

I'm not sure though that even a CPL holding non FI/CRI could conduct this flight legally as it would surely be construed as non-instructional 'aerial work' and need to be under some form of operator's certificate?

'Being paid' for flying isn't the whole situation. For example, the attempts by some to employ well-paid 'gardeners' to cut the grass outside the club house once per week but just happen to be PPL holders with FI ratings has been tried on in the past....

I agree with your explanation of the rationale behind the cost-sharing restrictions.

As I've said before, there are plenty of FIs and FI(R)s available to do any amount of 'trial lessons' and 'check rides' for general club work - so clubs should darn well use them and keep on the right side of the law.

(Private owner group internal policies are a different matter, I grant you. So long as no dodgy deals are agreed, of course!)

[Big Pistons Forever]

With respect to the post that started this thread. Any club which uses PPL's to teach what is meant to be the initial lesson plan of the PPL sylabus is operating so far beyond the pale it simply must be reported to the authorities.

With respect to the further discussion of currency check rides I think it is important to remember why Flying Clubs have currency requirements. It is to ensure that renter pilots continue to be safe to fly. I would suggest this determination is far from black and white and in fact currency check rides require quite a bit of discrimination to be able to extrapolate flying skills demonstrated in a short flight into a determination the pilot will likely be able to safely deal with any possible contingency he/she may encounter.

In my case I did a few currency rides as a CPL before getting my instructor rating. In retrospect I really had no idea what I was looking for. My Club stopped the practice of non instructors doing checkouts after a renter pilot crashed a club aircraft the day after his checkout by a non instructor CPL club member. In a perfect world these checks should be done by the most experienced instructors as they have the broad experience that will recognize the difference between a pilot who is rusty but safe and one who is heading for a potential accident.

Another point no one has mentioned is the ability of instructors to correct bad habits. I can think of many small items I have bought up in check ride debriefs . A lot are not dangerous practices but small items that unchecked will cause undue wear and tear on the aircraft. I do not think most PPL's can do this.

Finally while this might sound self serving, I think there is a world of difference between a good pilot and a good instructor. I did not appreciate the difference untill I took my QFI training. I thought because I was a good CPL pilot, instructing could not be that hard. It did not take long to realise how wrong I was.

:uhoh:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I have a question.

Suppose a pilot lets his/ her instructors rating lapse due to moving into another area of flying, then years later becomes involved in training pilots in type specific aircraft.

Is the quality of instruction lacking because the training pilot no longer holds a valid instructors rating?

Chuck E.

[BEagle]

In the Brave New World of JAA-land, such a person would probably be a Type Rating Instructor rather than a Flight Instructor. Certainly so on multi-pilot aeroplanes.

Hence "Mr PBY" would be a PBY TRI; he wouldn't teach the 'big cows, small cows' stuff nor would he need to. But he'd be an acknowledged specialist on converting pilots onto the PBY. Lucky people! As to 'quality' of the instruction given - that's down to the individual TRI.

The rating qualification test would be carried out by a Type Rating Examiner (TRE).

[mad_jock]

I can see what your getting at Chuck and yes you can see a difference.

The line trainers, TRI's and TRE's who have instructed from zero hours are very different to the ones that moved sideways into it later on in there careers.

I prefer the ones that have instructed SEP, you know what they are trying to do most of the time and you both talk the same lingo.

MJ

[Whirlybird]

Concerning "check rides", isn't this getting a bit over the top? These are required by clubs and insurance companies, not the CAA. Some pilots are very rusty after a month; some - especially if they've been flying for years and years and have loads of experience - probably not. Some were never much good in the first place. Some could do with an instructor correcting their bad habits anyway. But LEGALLY all of these things are irrelevant. the CAA says they can all fly so long as they do 12 hours in two years plus....etc etc etc. If they own their own aircraft, they can do just that. So while it may be good and desirable and sensible for pilots to do regular flying with an instructor, that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it's legal for them to do a "check" with a non-instructor, or who can distinguish between rustiness and a pilot who shouldn't be flying. And I'm an instructor, and can therefore do checkrides, and I'm damned sure I wouldn't be able to tell the difference in all cases. :confused:

[DFC]

MJ,

I do not believe that there is any requirement to log anything on a flight to regain the 3 landings in the past 90 days other than the fact that the 3 landings were completed as sole manipulator of the controls. Thus the problems of what to log the flight as do not arrise. Perhaps the rules need to be changed to require the 3 take-offs and landings to be made as pilot of the aircraft. This could include P1, P1/S and Student (dual).

You do however make a very good point about who should pay for the flight and quite correctly point out that the flight must be cost sharing between both PPLs or paid in full by the pilot in command.

----

When dealing with club checkouts by PPLs one big question which has not yet been asked is - What happens of the PPL who is a passenger discovers that this pilot being "checked" is dangerous. The PPL has no authority to take-over the command of the aircraft and must simply sit there and suffer while their fellow club member does their best to kill them both. If the club member suceeds in doing so, it will and end up in court and I don't think that the Judge could say that the Club met it's obligations under the duty of care.

The same can be said about instructors who fail to report dangerous practices.

We all know that today the majority of "Trial Lessons" are simply public sightseeing flights operating under a loophole. It isn't possible to close that loophole and maintain the ability to attract students into the industry. Thus the CAA has it's hands tied to a certain extent. However, further abuse of the system such as has been reported here can only lead to the CAA putting serious restrictions on training organisations.

I bet that the profits made on "trial lessons" subsidise the training for those that decide to continue their training.

There is also the problem that while instructors are protected by Flight Time Limitations which are designed to prevent accidents caused by fatigue, PPLs are not.

Have we come up with enough reasons why this is illegal, dangerous and must be reported yet?

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

Whirly, you wrote: So while it may be good and desirable and sensible for pilots to do regular flying with an instructor, that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it's legal for them to do a "check" with a non-instructor, or who can distinguish between rustiness and a pilot who shouldn't be flying. And I'm an instructor, and can therefore do checkrides, and I'm damned sure I wouldn't be able to tell the difference in all cases.

If you, as a FI cannot tell what is safe and what is not, I'm equally 'damned sure' that a totally unqualified non-instructor has even less chance of ascertaining the 'rustiness' of any pilot they might be 'checking'.

Using non-CRI/FIs for any form of 'check' is totally unacceptable. That's the way bad habits get passed on. PFA coaches are all now CRIs at least, so for them to do such flights is fine. But for the CFI's best non-CRI/FI drinking mates to do them? Absolutely not!!

Those who use 'trial flights' as simple revenue gathering joy rides must remember that the CAA keeps a close eye on such things; however, if any PPL non-FI conducts these flights then both the club and the pilot deserve all that the Enforcement Branch can throw at them. Perhaps an 'undercover' visit to the place in question will be forthcoming very soon?

[bookworm]

I'm not sure though that even a CPL holding non FI/CRI could conduct this flight legally as it would surely be construed as non-instructional 'aerial work' and need to be under some form of operator's certificate?

I don't think there is an "operator's certificate" for aerial work, is there? Art 6 of the ANO requires an AOC for public transport, but there's no corresponding requirement for aerial work.

All it requires is an aircraft with an appropriate C of A (in theory for aerial work but in practice there's no difference between that and a PT C of A) and a pilot with a CPL.

The PPL has no authority to take-over the command of the aircraft and must simply sit there and suffer while their fellow club member does their best to kill them both.

Perhaps he should get danger money... Oh no, that wouldn't work, would it?! :)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

BEagle, and all:

The training I do in the Cats is sort of like the chicken and the egg problem.

When someone wants training in one I just sort of end up doing most of them due to there are not many flying and I stay current just by doing it.

As to the actual check ride it is usually done by an Inspector from the Country that the airplane is in ( even though they never ever seen one before ) except for a couple of countries that have given me check ride and type rating authority, the last country to do that was Australia, and now I have done all the magic paper work for Holland.

England lost the nicest PBY on earth when I ferried N9521C from North Weald to Virginia last summer, did you see the five page article on it in January FlyPast?

Well soon you should have the new airplane that Plane Sailing bought ferried to England and there will be a flying example for airshows.

As to renewing my Instructors rating, I can't afford the lobotomy to learn and reguritate all the manditory lesson plans and TC's ideas on how to teach.....so I'll just stumble along using what little I have picked up over the last half century doing it.

One last question?

When are you to old to still teach flying?

Chuck

[BEagle]

You're only too old when either some obscure foreign law forces you to stop - or you decide you no longer want to do it! Somehow I don't think that the latter applies to you, Chuck!

Looking forward to seeing and hearing a Cat in the UK again soon; hope that you're flying her! Enjoy!!

[Whirlybird]

BEagle,

I think you've missed my point. I was saying - or intending to - that being an FI doesn't mean I can do a few circuits with someone and tell if they'll be OK on, for instance, a long cross country. I haven't been trained to do that. I think I have as much chance of being able to do so as an experienced PPL; no more, no less.

However, I still think the problem is that we're calling this a "check". Don't forget that legally a pilot can fly even if he hasn't flown for a year (or more actually), and can take passengers so long as he's done three take-offs and landings within 90 days. Private owners and pilots with shares in aircraft aren't "checked" every 28 days. Lots of pilots really don't need to be, and schools often know who those pilots are. So, if they choose to let those pilots fly with a PPL safety pilot, and the insurance company is happy with that, it may not be a safety issue.

I see your point about it being a grey area with respect to employees and payment. It shouldn't be, but the CAA isn't always completely logical with respect to their own rules, so it could be. But IMHO it's not necessarily unsafe and wrong. You may disagree, and that's fine. However, I wonder if you're not mixing up your own opinions - to which you're perfectly entitled - with what is or isn't legal.

Finally, lets keep the two issues being discussed on this thread separate. PPLs doing trial lessons is illegal and totally wrong. PPLs acting as safety pilots to other PPLs to fit in with club or insurance rules is a very different matter. Let's not lump them together.

[DFC]

I think you've missed my point. I was saying - or intending to - that being an FI doesn't mean I can do a few circuits with someone and tell if they'll be OK on, for instance, a long cross country. I haven't been trained to do that. I think I have as much chance of being able to do so as an experienced PPL; no more, no less

No instructor or examminer operates with the aid of a crystal ball.

If all you do with the pilot being checked is a few circuits then all you have to make a judgement on is their ability to safely take-off, perform the basic flight manoeuvres and land the aircraft.

We are talking about licensed pilots here, not students. All I expect of a pilot undergoing a check is to show me that they are not going to be a danger to themselves, their passengers, other operators or the club finances (damage the aircraft).

As an FI, one has experience of checking and correcting faults. One has also been licensed as an FI based in part on one's ability to make a decision regarding the competence of a pilot - that is what being an FI is all about.

When I fly with pilot's requiring a check, I can generally tell what type of a flight it is going to be based on how the pre-flight and pre-take-off checks are completed! :)

Regards,

DFC

[mad_jock]

All this discussion about if its legal or not for known club members with the authority of the CFI to carry out check rides for compliance of club rules. It still dosn't change the fact that the majority of schools in the UK do it. And to be honest I really can't see the difference between private group members doing check rides and club members if there is no payment involved and the pilot is inside 90days.

And the FI's at these schools have nothing to do with it. Its purely a CFI's call. The FI's on this forum will have no affect on these people. If it is illeagal as you say BEagle (which by the sounds of it its in a boarder line grey area, (wouldn't be a problem in Jock land but England and wales it would) the only way it will be stopped is if the Belgrano actually issues a notice to all CFI's. I certainly wouldn't have a problem if you brought it up at a standards meeting and got something done about it. If the powers that be don't want to do anything about it so be it. And I don't see FI's moaning because they will have to do more flying.
CFI's might moan because plane usage might go down a bit and they possibly have to hire more FI's. But again its not really a concern for your normal FI.

And thinking about it the europa demo team don't all have FI ratings and they are charging costs for having a shot in the europa. So thats charging full price and having a non FI teach/check on a permit to fly aircraft......
I stayed well away from them that day


MJ

[Say again s l o w l y]

DFC, is absolutely correct that an FI should be able to pick up any dangerous 'tendancies' even on a few circuits.
Since most people are likely to kill themselves because of their attitude towards flying rather than their skill level, this is something you can see easily in how they plan and pre-flight the a/c. This is as almost as important as how they fly when you are on board.

I personally feel that only FI's should be allowed to do 'checkouts' for all the reasons others have stated before, unfortunately I don't think that it is 'illegal' for a non-FI to do these 'checks.'

I have often wondered about the legality of companies giving Demo's of their 'planes. I never realised that they charged and I assume that this is beyond the pail. Charging for a demo? If my local car dealerships started doing that, then they would never get anybody through their doors!

[BEagle]

MJ - careful with your last paragraph. You might be making false accusations.

Personally I cannot agree to the concept of CFI-mandated Club '28 day checks' being carried out by non-CRI/FIs, irrespective of the 90-day recency rule. If any check is needed, it must be done by a properly qualified person. Mutual PPL flying by agreement is fine; to force someone to do so isn't. But 28 days seems very draconian; even I only require 42-day recency. If Club pilots go outside that, they just have to fly a quick trip (exactly as DFC describes) to prove that they're no danger to themselves orto anyone/anything else - with an authorised instructor!

There's a world of difference between a private-owner group with its own internal agreements and a club with ac generally available for hire.