Air experience or trial lesson?

[BigEndBob]

When did air experience flights become trial lessons?
I hear the CAA are to review this.
Surely the purpose of an air experience flight is to give someone the opportunity to not only experience the thrill of flying and controlling an aircraft, but also to show it as a useful tool.
I seem to remember some years ago a club getting into hot water because they were taking 'trial flights' across the channel to France. But...why not...does this not demonstrate the usefulness of a light aircraft. A bit extreme i suppose but whats wrong with nipping over to a neighbouring airfield for a quick coffee.

[GT]

BigEndBob,

There's nothing wrong at all with nipping over to another airfield. I do it sometimes, and the terms 'air experience flight' and 'trial lesson' are merely different names for the same thing, namely, Ex. 3 of the PPL syllabus, and therein lies the real issue.

An air experience flight/trial lesson is to allow someone the experience of flying an aeroplane themselves and so they should be allowed to take the controls. They will, of course, experience the other sensations of flying as well.

What should not happen is that a flying school, unless it holds at least an A to A AOC, advertises (note the word carefully) that it's instructors will fly you around the countryside so that you can watch the world float by: that is a Pleasure Flight.

Now, if someone's having an air experience flight/trial lesson and they don't want to take control of the aeroplane you can't (and shouldn't) force them to and so the instructor will then be doing all the flying while they do indeed watch the world float by. The point is, though, you can't advertise this option as a specific product for sale (unless, of course, you have an AOC).

Hope this clears things up a bit.

Regards, GT.

[idle stop]

It therefore goes without saying that a Trial Lesson MUST be preceded by a Briefing and followed by a Debrief. (In addition to the mandatory safety brief.)
A few training outfit operators, would, I suspect, like to programme back-to-back running-change TLs for their instructors, leaving no time for the briefing process. FIs beware Illegal Public Transport: it's your licence at stake.
Air Experience flying....now only a fond memory.......demonstrating 'Further Effects of Controls' as the dear old Chippy floats over the top of a gentle loop on a summer's afternoon with an air cadet in the back seat. Ahhhh!

[Noggin]

"Trial Lessons" are just that, a lesson that is a trial, it could be anything that a FI is entitled to teach however; it is usually based on Ex 3 in the PPL syllabus, Air Experience.

The CAA legal department did try to define a "trial lesson" some years ago, but gave up as it was too difficult.

The real issue is what is the purpose of a trial flight, is it to introduce a potential new customer to flying lessons, or to offer a scenic tour culiminating in a lunch somewhere.

In the latter case, the customer will expect a higher standard of safety than can be guaranteed in a flying club hence the requirement for an AOC. Flying clubs are exempt from the requirement to hold an AOC, and potential students must recognise that there is a greater level of risk associated with learning to fly, than they would expect if embarking upon a public transport flight.

[homeguard]

Why should an individual "expect" a higher level of safety on a Public Transport flight than when being instructed at a Flying Club?

Safety and the consequences do not discriminate! Do you think excessive and gratuitous paperwork makes a difference to it.

[martinidoc]

I cannot believe that Noggin seriouly thinks that a trial lesson customer considers when they go up that their safety is more at risk than if the FTO had an AOC.

I fly regualrly as a customer on public transport aircraft and as an part time instructor for an FTO with public cat C of A aircraft. Hopefully I have not in doing so been putting my sfaety at risk.

If what you say is correct, then we should be quantifying the risk, and informing customers of the relative risks of flying with an FTO/RTF and an AOC, so that they can make an informed choice about whether they want to go on a trial lesson.

God help us all if we are forced down that route, removing us even further from the realms of common sense.

[Mike Cross]

I cannot believe that Noggin seriouly thinks that a trial lesson customer considers when they go up that their safety is more at risk than if the FTO had an AOC.

Read his post again. He is suggesting that if the flight is effectively a charter to somewhere nice for lunch then the punter is entitled to Public Transport standards. Nowhere does he suggest that these standards should apply to trial lessons.

[mad_jock]

I was putting together an AOC for A to A for primary photography.

The restrictions for A to A pleasure flying are quite restrictive for not only routes flown but also training, qualifications and also FTL's. And never mind the amount of paper work and changes to maint practises this all generates.

If the whole industry was forced to put in place A to A regulations you would quite quickly see the death of trial flights. You are looking at at least 700-800 pounds of training intially and 200 quid a year afterwards for ground training and about 200 quid every 6 months to keep the pilots current.

I personally think the CAA have been waiting to clamp down on this for years. But some how nobody has had an accident with a trial flight onboard and now they have other things to worry about with control being slowly handed over the water.

MJ

[homeguard]

I don't think the CAA have been "trying for years" to clamp down on 'Trial Flights' at all.

Flying an aeroplane is not an experience that anyone may have without undertaking an actual lesson with a 'Flying Instructor'. It is quite proper and not a masquerade to have a 'Trial' first before commiting themselves and their money to a course.

To have a 'Pleasure or Sightseeing Flight' with a AOC operation would not allow 'hands on' or any Instruction to be given during the flight. Indeed unless the Pilot was also an Instructor it would be unsafe. An Instructor is trained and qualified to hand over control and take back control and deal with the sometime unfortunate handling characteristics of the nervous and occasionally terrified student.

Even if the punter has no intention to continue with training, it is in the hands of a trained and qualified Flying Instructor that they are able to sample a full experience of flight.

A BLOODY GOOD ADVERT FOR THE PROFESSION AND THE FLYING INDUSTRY, AS A WHOLE, WHEN DONE WELL, AS MOSTLY IT IS!

[mad_jock]

I quite agree and in my time as an instructor some of the most rewarding lessons were taking poeple up for there first flight ever and getting them to do both the takeoff and landing.

But if the regulations change which make the school have to hold a A to A and comply with its limitations while conducting the air experence instructor lesson there are going to be problems.

How many of the trial lessons have you done when there was honestly a chance of the student continuing the training?

And the reason why i said the they have been thinking about trying for years to clamp down on it. Is because thats what the man at the CAA (flt ops inspector) said when you get your interview before starting the process for the A to A.

The problem is the instructors out there who don't treat it as the lesson it should be. We have all i am sure had punters who have refused to touch the controls and only wanted to look out the window. And what about the punters who get a trial flight per year for there xmas and brithdays, one bloke i took up had 5 hours to do and he wasn't going to touch the controls. Andwhat about the punters who want to go up for photo sessions of the local area then hey presto the photo appears in the local paper 2 days later.

And do you create a training record for every trial flight? Because if it is a lesson you should.

Looking back on my instructoring career there were so many dodgy situations which were in the grey areas of everyone does it but if you read the letter of the regs it is actually illegal. And we all get through it and move on or we become career and can avoid it. I would hate to be a low hour instructor and be the test case in court because when it comes down to it we are PIC and the blame stops there.

MJ

BTW I think instructors being made to go on FTL's is a bloody sensible idea.

[homeguard]

I can imagine that the odd Ops. Inspector, who's a control freak and would like to control everyone around, to have expressed to you such a wish. However i'm reasured that FCL 'Training Standards' have more nowse than that.

Not a perfect world but i'm sure that you would agree that bar the irritating exceptions, most of those that we take up for a Trial lesson want to do it for the actual hands on flying experience. I have known the odd chap who initially said that they didn't want to take control. And then, following the flight have enjoyed it so much that they have then come back and started a course.

So who saids where the line is drawn. How much flying is done must be between the Instructor and the student. That cannot be decided by law, thank God!

[Sally Cinnamon]

To have a 'Pleasure or Sightseeing Flight' with a AOC operation would not allow 'hands on' or any Instruction to be given during the flight. Indeed unless the Pilot was also an Instructor it would be unsafe

homeguard This is typical pprune bullcr@p! I would like to know how this is unsafe ??

How is a commercial pilot (complete with IR as required even for VFR work) having been given sufficient training to pass an LPC/OPC, having completed JAR OPS fire taining, and first aid training, operating to the confines of a company operations manual is more 'unsafe' than a ppl flying instructor.

Please, enlighten me ???

[Aileron Roll]

Not really a question of who is safer..... but who is LICENCED !

[BEagle]

Or rather, 'Rated'....

The arrogance of that "I fly airliners, so I'm equally as qualified to conduct a 'trail flight' as any puddlejumper instructor" statement beggars belief. If you are not an authorised instructor, you may NOT conduct 'trial flying lessons'. Period. No discussion...

It makes eminent sense to try the experience of flying in a light ac before committing oneself to an expensive course.

But 'vouchers' won by people who have no intention of even considering learning to fly? Hmmm......

[mad_jock]

I don't think it was ever suggested that it wouldn't be a FI conducting these flights.

What the guy was saying is that the flight would have to conform to A to A conditions.

ie

The route has to be standard with Plogs, commercial minimum fuel reserves, alternates etc. 1500ft agl (I think) must be maintained at all times. And forced landings sites must be available on all legs and briefed to pilots. No flying over water at all unless an assesment has been made and min altituded has been specified. And there are wx minimums which are quite alot higher than Flying school ops manuals.

Standardised briefings must be held and plane kitted out with briefing cards.

Maintence must be with a JAR xx whatever the number is organisation.

The pilot/FI must of completed all single crew ops JAR courses. CRM, fire and smoke, first aid etc and keep them current.

The FI must hold an IR or have 500hrs PIC I think, haven't got the CAP to hand that I was working from.

Training must included Line training on routes/plane types to be flown and also LPC/OPC every 6 months. In both seats depending on SOP's.

All crew must follow a FTL scheme, so no more 7x 12hr day weeks during the summer.

And the organisation must be documented, audited etc as per and other airline.

So it is quite different to the "where do you want to go?" "step through here for a quick brief about what we are going to do"

I quite agree it shouldn't be the norm for anyone other than a FI to teach a Ex3. BUt as you can see from the above it dosn't leave much lee way for FI's/ CFI's to abuse the system or the FI's be forced into situations they arn't happy with. Unlike the current situation.

MJ

[homeguard]

mad-jock

If we had to follow such a ridiculous list of requirements, you are quite right there would be no room for abuse by flying clubs or bolshy CFI's. In fact there would be no room to do anything, clubs would grind to a halt and probably go bust!

And who is this Ops. Inspector who will be interfering with flying instruction, if such a stupid regime was to be put in place. Very unlikely to be an Instructor. Do we really want ex airline non-instructor Captains imposing airline operational standards and interfering in a flying clubs daily work routine, undermining the training standards that have been so carefully developed over decades. NO!

[mad_jock]

I don't think it was his personal goal in life to impose this on the industry he was only repeating the CAA feeling that there were to many people ripping the absolute piss out of the current trial lesson setup. At the moment because nobody has fallen out of the sky and the papers haven't made a fuss about it nothing will be done. CAA will send rumours out every so often to stop the worst offenders.

And he isn't an ex-airline he is current and I believe a SPA IR examiner.

A question then how many of your trial flights actually go on to do the PPL?

I know most schools couldn't survive without this revenue and also the number of untaken trial flights was a bit of a shocker as well, money for nothing. Funded an engine in my last school.

Take some of the things though

Point 1. Its just not going to happen half the fun of the flight is taking the punter to see there house.

Point 2: Fair enough yes it is a good idea

Point 3: Nah planes arn't falling out of the sky.

Point 4: Fire and Smoke and first aid, Not a bad idea.

Point 5: Check ride with the CFI every 6 months bloody great idea keeps bad habits from forming.

Point 6: FTL scheme best one of the lot, stops owners forcing staff into 7 day weeks on duty all day 8 to 8 in summer and flying 100hrs plus a month.

Point 7: Your going to need some or the FTL scheme is worthless.

Do we really want ex airline non-instructor Captains imposing airline operational standards and interfering in a flying clubs daily work routine, undermining the training standards that have been so carefully developed over decades

No it will be the CAA who will impose on behalf of the european agency which will be acompletely different kettle of fish to deal with. The rules and regs in the UK compared to most of europe regarding flight training are pretty lax. And no doudt in the interest of standards everyone will be brought up to nearly the most resrictive ( apart from the french of course who will ignore it). They have started by screwing the gliding clubs in the UK the rest will follow. The CAA ain't the enemy anymore just the local bobby.

MJ

[homeguard]

No, of course the CAA are not an enemy.

However an AOC Inspector is not appropiate. The CAA already have Standards Inspectors for Training schools who, already, may inspect registered flying schools, if they so wish. So far they have chosen not to do so on a regular basis. No doubt because the system is working quite well.

Approved Courses are of course inspected annually. No problem with that. The FCL guys are often constructive when they do visit and are the right ones for the job.

I think it a rather odd concept; because maybe a large number of 'Trial flights' do not continue, that they should be re-catagoriesed as 'Pleasure Flights', which they are not. Instructors giving a one off but proper flying lesson is a wonderful advertisement to the whole industry. As you have already said, extremely safely too. Not the same can be said of the A to A, AOC world. And, the big question, how does one distinguish between a one off lesson and the first of many? None of us have a crystal ball.

Fire and evactuation drills are part of the PPL syllabus. A good CFI already maintains standards and continuity for the students. Until very recently, as you know, AFI's were checked annually and FI's biannually until JAR. The Instustry didn't ask for the change, it was revised to the present unsatisfactory mess by the JAA with agreement with the CAA.

As for working hours. No one has forced me to do anything other than what I thought was reasonable. I know of no other regular Instructors who will tolerate long hours yet alone seven days. Hour builders are a different matter. The so called 'career' Instructor Vs the 'hour builder' debate has continued within other threads. Don't bite the hand that provides you work, show some charactor in setting your own working hours. My Instructors do. Sirs means of controlling you isn't as sweet as it sounds. It is your Log Book that they will want to see. It is you that the Ops. Isp. will hold responsible.

[mad_jock]

Thankfully I am now under a FTL scheme.

And you obviously run your school alla BEagles model. I wish more schools were like yours.

Record so far i have heard about is 136hrs in 1 month.

And my personal was 118hrs.

As for showing abit of character. Aye right very easyway to get sacked and on the ****ty end of a bad job reference.

If everyone operated the same way as yourself there would be no problems unfortunatly they don't which is dragging the rest of the schools down.

I still reckon the European agency will impose changes aka the changes with the introduction with JAR. But we will have to wait and see.

MJ

[BigEndBob]

What happens if incident occurs on the 101st hour, re insurance etc.?

I was once told off by a CAA inspector for doing over 100hr in one month, unfortunately he couln't add up!

It was 99.:D

[WestWind1950]

interesting discussion going on here.....

Trial flights... BEagle has it right, as I see it...

The arrogance of that "I fly airliners, so I'm equally as qualified to conduct a 'trail flight' as any puddlejumper instructor" statement beggars belief. If you are not an authorised instructor, you may NOT conduct 'trial flying lessons'. Period. No discussion...

I don't know the particulars in England, only here in Germany, which is also now a JAR country (what a mess http://www.dorrie.de/images/kotzsmilie1.gif ) but here ANY student, or potential student must have certain paperwork laid before the school before going up in a so-called "trail lesson" (also for insurance reasons) other wise he/she can only go up in the right seat, the instuctor in the left (and yes, ONLY instructors). No one on the ground can see who is actually handling the controls and the instrutor has the full responstibility anyway.

Sightseeing flights for pay are legal here, outside of an AOC, as long as they are conducted on a plane which is registered as having only 4 seats or less, payment isn't high enough to appear to be for profit, and no advertising is done. This enables clubs to give flights to visitors (and yes, usually a bit more expensive then a regular club flight ;) ). Of course, there are a lot of clubs and LOTS of balloonists that misuse this rule ... making quite a profit indeed... but whose to "catch" them? It's difficult to prove in the end....

However an AOC Inspector is not appropiate. The CAA already have Standards Inspectors for Training schools who, already, may inspect registered flying schools, if they so wish. So far they have chosen not to do so on a regular basis. No doubt because the system is working quite well

if the situation in England is similar to here, the reason for no inspections is not choosing to do so but lack of man(woman) power! Personel has been cut, the remaining personel are overloaded with work and just don't have the time to inspect ....

I find it fascinating how the various JAA states followed up on the JAR's differently.... no harmonisation at all it seems... I have have downloaded your LASORS and find it very intersting to compare with our regs...

Westy

[DFC]

MJ,

Perhaps you should read article 74 of the ANO before you make such statements.

Record so far i have heard about is 136hrs in 1 month.

And my personal was 118hrs.

That is the basic FTL scheme for every instructor.

Regards,

DFC

[mad_jock]

74 - (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a person shall not act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom if at the beginning of the flight the aggregate of all his previous flight times:



(a) during the period of 28 consecutive days expiring at the end of the day on which the flight begins exceeds 100 hours; or

(b) during the period of twelve months expiring at the end of the previous month exceeds 900 hours.


(2)



(a) This article shall not apply to a flight made in circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (b).

(b)


(i) A private flight in an aircraft of which the maximum total weight does not exceed 1600 kg; or

(ii) a flight which is not for the purpose of public transport and is not operated by an air transport undertaking where, at the time when the flight begins, the aggregate of all the flight times of the member of the flight crew concerned since he was last medically examined and found fit by a person approved by the CAA for the purpose of article 26(2) does not exceed 25 hours.

Yep know this one.

The exuse used is that the flight isn't public transport so section (2) is being invoked therefore there are no 28 day limits for instructors. The 900 hours does apply apparently depending on who you talk to. Some say you need to get an AME extenstion every 25 hours after 900 some don't. Same for photography they can fly 12 hours a day all summer if required and still be legal.

Yet another grey area.

What your actually fit for after more than 100hrs instructing in 28 days is up for debate. I know this will only effect certain types of school with large contracts or monoploy markets.But i should imagine welshpool in its day would have had instructors doing similar amounts of hours. WWW?

MJ

[DFC]

Section 2 gives two exemptions from the 100hr per 28 days or 900 hour per year limit. They are for;

private flights with a weight limit; and

Non-public transport flights where the pilot has completed less than 25 hours since medical examination.

For an instructional flight (Aerial Work), in order to exceed the 100 hour limit, one would have to be medically exammined. I doubt if any AME would pass as fit a pilot who intentionally worked such excessive hours.

So yes one can fly a 12 hour day on 8 consecutive days and then 4 hours on the 9th but one then needs a medical to complete any further flying (other than private flying) for the next 28 days.

Most organisations such as AOPA and the BMAA remind instructors of the 100hour and 900 hour limits.

Of course, the hours you spend supervising solos, providing groundschool, pre and post flight briefs, aircraft check A and documentation are not catered for in the limits so it is entirely possible to work 16 hour days but only fly 4 hours each day.

Do instructors need any further FTL?

Regards,

DFC

Further to the above,

Taking the UK weather and overall regular VFR flying season into account, perhaps instructors in the UK should press for the same system that is provided for in Canada where up to 14 hour days are permitted for certain operators during the Summer flying season because of the weather and daylight limitations of the Winter.

Regards,

DFC

[mad_jock]

;) thats yet another theory on how to read that section.

And it was also a question in the Q&A session by my FIE.

And quoted the 100hrs every 28days 900hrs a year stuff and was told I was wrong I only had to comply with 900hrs a year.

So if the Flight Instructor Examiners aren't getting it right there is not much of a hope for a FI getting it right.

We could have a laugh and email the CAA I suppose for a written answer but i suspect they won't comment.

The only further FTL I would like is a duty time period in the school and also an enforcement of rest days. ie not starting at 7am then flying all day then having to work until 10pm doing ground school to then again start at 7am and then repeat 7 days a week. And its more for the protection of low hour Instructors who can and will work every hour under the sun and moon to get hours in the log book. So maybe a 3 rest days in 14 days rolling. Max 12hr shift followed by min 12 hour rest. 100hrs a month I can live with, and it should be published so no argument can be entered into through those Instructor mags we get every quarter, and 900hrs a year stands.

In fact if there are any CAA bods reading why not send it out with the next one before the summer season is under full swing.

I think the FAA has FTL's for instructors. When I did my PPL in FL I remember my instructor got sent home due to FTL's and he also wasn't allowed to fly more than x hours a day.

MJ

[homeguard]

From the qoute of the ANO, does it not say 100hrs over 28 CONSECUTIVE DAYS rather than a period of 28 days.

(a) during the period of 28 consecutive days expiring at the end of the day on which the flight begins exceeds 100 hours; or

That would then mean that for each day off a further 100hr block would become effective. i.e. 125 flying hours within a CALENDER MONTH is OK, in regard to the ANO.

The FIE qouted perhaps has a point

[mad_jock]

Nope thats not how it reads for public transport FTL scheme's it reads for 28 days blocks. So as you move 1 day on the previous 27 must not have more than 100 hrs flown in them.

And the FIE said to ignore the 28days limit.

But yet again it shows that there is cross information being fed to FI's by FIE, CFI's etc. And unfortunatly if you ask the CAA for ruling they will refuse to do it.

Anyway we will see how things pan out after the new european agency get there teeth into the rules regarding flight instruction.

MJ

[DFC]

The CAA and the BMAA have issued guidance to instructors warning them of the limit of 100 hours in 28 days.

They state that it is unlikely that many instructors would exceed the 900 hour limit per year but that during the busy summer months instructors must be careful not to exceed the 100 hour limit.

Perhaps you should ask the CAA for clarification.

regards,

DFC

[WestWind1950]

I thought this thread was about trial lessons? shouldn't a new thread have been started for the discussion about the rest and duty times? other pilots might have gotten interested in it.....

Westy

P.S. I wish I flew so much that I had to worry about it... :(

[mad_jock]

Nah i don't think i will bother I really don't see it being an issue in my life again.

And if you could provide a reference for where the CAA has stated that I will pass it on to the next instructor working at the school.

MJ

[Mike Cross]

Homeguard said(a) during the period of 28 consecutive days expiring at the end of the day on which the flight begins exceeds 100 hours; or

That would then mean that for each day off a further 100hr block would become effective. i.e. 125 flying hours within a CALENDER MONTH is OK, in regard to the ANO.
Eh?????:confused: :confused: :confused:

This is pretty basic english and unambiguous. If at any time your total exceeds 100 hours over the previous 28 days you are illegal. If you have 97 hours in the last 27 days and do four hours today then you will, at the end of today, have done 101 hours in the last 28 days and be illegal.

What difference does it make whether you flew yesterday or the day before or the day before that? If you did the 97 hours in 14 days, did nothing for the next 13 days and then four hours on the 28th day you would still be illegal.

Mike

[homeguard]

Mike

Surely 'consecutive' in the ANO section quoted means consecutive flying days not calender days. All days follow one from the other on a calender, how could they be otherwise, and the obvious needs no reminder.

If a statement that; maximum hours to be flown within X consecutive days, is allured to, then that must be flying days. A break of one day therefore would create another block of consecutive days which may also be broken with a day off to become another series of days.

JAR Ops. I believe refers differently to a 'period' which is different. Instructing is not prescribed within JAR Ops.

[Mike Cross]

the aggregate of all his previous flight times:
(a) during the period of 28 consecutive days expiring at the end of the day
I think you are attempting to read something in to that statement that is not there.
It says 28 consecutive days, not 28 flying days, 28 duty days, 28 working days, 28 days excluding bank and public holidays.

Take the expression "the period of 28 consecutive days expiring at the end of the day on which the flight begins" first, work out what it means, and then work back from that.

Consecutive:- Following one after another without interruption

Mike

[homeguard]

when is it ever possible for one day not to follow another?