Carriage of Passengers on Training Flights

[Another CFI]

I have read in the past under which circumstances it is acceptable to carry "passengers" on training flights. I believe I understand when it is acceptable but cannot find a definitive answer published anywhere.

Can anyone help?

[Noggin]

There is no definitave answer. So long as no money changes hands for the purpose of the flight it is not illegal.

It is only sensible that the instructor should consider it appropriate for a passenger to be carried and that the student does not object.

[Another CFI]

Noggin thanks for the reply. I am fairly certain I understand when passengers can be carried. What I am looking for is a definitive and official statement on the subject.

In the past this information was published but I have searched high and low in AICs, Newsline, CAA web site, etc and can no longer find the information.

[Kermit 180]

Can understand not taking pax for stalls, FLWOP or aeros, but what about all up weight checks? Theyre training flights.

[DeltaT]

If I am doing a 'trial lesson', and the person wants to take a passenger, can I do this without it having to be a Public Transport flight ??

[BEagle]

Delta T - Noggin will be far more knowledgeable about this than me, but a 'Trial Flight' must include a ground brief and some element of flight instruction - even if it's only to consist of Air Experience. Hence it must take place in an aeroplane with a Transport(Passenger) category CofA from a licensed or government aerodrome flown at least by a FI(R).

There should be no reason why a non-paying passenger may not come along on such a flight if instructor, student and passenger agree - but the passenger must not be charged anything for the flight either by the pilot or by the student - or by anyone else. The 'free flight with every £25 cup of coffee' scam has also been tried in the past - it is 100% illegal!!

A while ago the CAA were, quite rightly, red hot on stopping 'illegal Public Transport' being conducted under the guise of 'trial flying lessons' - some cowboys were stretching the definition to absurd limits. A 'joyride' (in the old sense) is emphatically not a 'trial flying lesson' - it is a commercial passenger flight for which the aeroplane operator, aeroplane, pilot and aerodrome must be suitably licensed and approved.

[Noggin]

Delta T. Yes provided that the passenger does not pay for the privilege.

The only definitive statement is the ANO. There is no such thing as a "trial lesson" its either a "Lesson" or it isn't. If any instruction is given and that may not even involve handling the controls, then it could be classed as a lesson.

At the end of the day one just has to be sensible. If you charge someone to fly and they receive no instruction it is public transport.

[BEagle]

Snap!

[juswonnafly]

I agree with all that has been said so far.

Here's a couple more to think about.

1. Someone rings up and asks for a trial lesson for their spouse and 'by the way could two other passengers sit in the back?'........in other words the intent to fly 3 people was there from the outset.

2. If a friend asks me to fly them on a 'jolly with their missus' and I still sit in the right hand seat and 'teach' is this flight legal?

The point I am making is that in each case these flights are booked and agreed in advance, does this make them any more 'grey' than if they were spur of the moment.

As an instructor if I invite the trial lesson students partner along then I see this as quite OK but if they ask me in advance I am not sure what the answer should be.

Confused? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

JWF

[BEagle]

Just so long as the person who receives flight instruction (Transport (Passenger) Category C of A, licensed aerodrome etc) in your first example is the person who pays, then I'd say it's fine. The others aren't receiving any benefit in kind - unless, for example, someone asks for a trial lesson from UK to France and the 2 people in the back say "Thanks a lot" and go off on a week's holiday.......

Your second example is a bit less clear. If the person in the LHS is receiving legitimate flight instruction, then in my opinion that's fine - and you can be paid for your services as a FI. But if it's just a touring jolly with no form of instruction at all, you mustn't receive any remuneration as that would almost certainly be viewed as illegal public transportation.

It's probably safest (legally) for you as the FI to lay down the content of a 'trial lesson' - no-one could then accuse you of entering into an agreement under conditions required or imposed by your 'customer'? I'm no legal expert, but I'd certainly steer clear of anything involving landing at a different aerodrome with anyone who isn't at least a temporary member of your flying club!

[Ivan Ivanovich]

I am informed by a highly experienced UK FE that no passengers are permitted to ride in the back whilst training is taking place unless the passenger is a member of the school/club and undergoing training for a PPL.

Haven't seen it written anywhere yet, but based on what I have been told I think it's worth looking into.

[BEagle]

Please ask this 'highly experienced UK/FE' to quote the source of this information. It's certainly news to me.......

[Noggin]

Ivan

That sounds like a "school rule" to me. It is not official, and has not been communicated to examiners in general. The content is however familiar and I think reflects one schools interpretation of a sensible approach.

Most schools are sensible in their approach however, one or two are not, and so called "trial lessons" have been seen to be flown by a pilot withot a FI rating. This is clearly illegal public transport. Another involves photographers who go to the local flying club rather than an AOC holder when they wish to capture a specific building. Again quite illegal.

[ 30 December 2001: Message edited by: Noggin ]</p>

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Not sure about elsewhere, but here in Australia CAR 249 states that
"...an aircraft that carries a passenger shall not engage in any of the following types of flying:
a) Flying training given to a person who has not passed a general flying progress flight test for aircraft of the category concerned
[categories being aeroplane, helicopter, gyrpolanes and airships].
b) practice of emergency procedures in the aircraft
c) low flying practice
d) testing an aircraft or its components, power plant or equipment" [unless a maintenance engineer is required as part of the test flight]

So no, you can't carry passengers on a "trial lesson" in Australia.

Elsewhere if there is no definitve regulation it would be worth checking with your insurance company to see if passengers carried on training flights were covered if something went wrong, or if they could sue the pants off everyone involved. I believe in the UK this is often covered by those passengers becoming a temporary member of the club.

Anyway how many 'legit' studes would want their friends or family witnessing their lesson?! *cringe*

[PPRuNe Dispatcher]

Passengers who come along for the ride during a training flight at White Waltham (West London Aero Club) must be members of the club for insurance purposes and day membership is available.

So far I've taken my wife along for two flights (including my first land away) and a friend on a nav. exercise flight. Very good experience as naturally I'm then expected to brief the pax. on emergency procedures, check they have their seatbelts done up correctly and that of course they are enjoying the flight.

--Mik

[BEagle]

...and that's absolutely fine, in my opinion, Mik. Plus it keeps your good lady out of the shops?? But if she gets the flying bug as well, perhaps it'll turn out to be an expensive result!

[Long Briefing]

I think this all boils down to what is the purpose of the flight from the outset. If it is a flying lesson (trial or otherwise), then it is aerial work. Passengers can be carried as observers to that lesson. If it is sold as solely a passenger flight, then it is flying for public transport. The selling of a trial flight with passengers and suggesting that all concerned can share the cost is clearly public transport.

So as I said at he beginning, consider what has been sold and the purpose of the flight. The purpose indicates whether it is aerial work or public transport. Whether passengers are subsequently carried or not does not alter the original purpose of the flight. Hope this helps.

[Andrew Cant]

I know that the subject of this discussion is taking passengers on training flights, but please allow me to make a slight tangent.

I understood that the requirements of a private flight was that the pilot did not receive personal gain, i.e. no profit margin. I am a little confused. Does the cost of the aircraft now constitute 'personal gain'?

As an example; a recently qualified PPL wants to show off his/her new skills to his family. Dad, recognising that son/daughter is probably skint from financing the training offers to cover the cost of the aircraft for the "show-off flight". Does that then constitute a commercial flight?

Before I get bombarded, I am in the early stages of my PPL training, so this is purely hypothetical.

[2Donkeys]

I believe that (in the UK at least), the relevant legislation for the original question is Article 21 of the Air Nav Order (2000). Para 5 covers the specific point and reads as follows - the conclusion being that no pax can be carried on a training sortie:

(5)

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), a person may, unless the certificate of airworthiness in force in respect
of the aircraft otherwise requires, act as pilot of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom for the purpose of undergoing
training or tests for the grant or renewal of a pilot's licence or for the inclusion, renewal or extension of a rating therein
without being the holder of an appropriate licence, if the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (b) are complied with.

(b)

(i) No other person shall be carried in the aircraft or in an aircraft being towed thereby except:

(aa) a person carried as a member of the flight crew in compliance with this Order;

(bb) a person authorised by the CAA to witness the aforesaid training or tests or to conduct the aforesaid
tests; or

(cc) if the pilot in command of the aircraft is the holder of an appropriate licence, a person carried for the
purpose of being trained or tested as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft.

(ii) The person acting as the pilot of the aircraft without being the holder of an appropriate licence either:

(aa) within the period of six months immediately preceding was serving as a qualified pilot of an aircraft in any
of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces, and his physical condition has not, so far as he is aware, so
deteriorated during that period as to render him unfit for the licence for which he intends to qualify; or

(bb) holds a pilot's, a flight navigator's or a flight engineer's licence granted under article 22 of this Order and
the purpose of the training or test is to enable him to qualify under this Order for the grant of a pilot's licence or
for the inclusion of an additional type in the aircraft rating in his licence and he acts under the supervision of a
person who is the holder of an appropriate licence.

[BEagle]

Wading through the typical ANO doublespeak, it would seem that someone being given a demonstration of flying training by a fully qualified licence holding Flight Instructor is not catered for.....nor is their chum in the bacK?

Fairly obviously you can't take someone along on a 'solo' navex, but if you need a co-pilot before your test (as the mil. do in the Jetsteam) that's OK.

But it's all still as clear as poo...

[ 02 January 2002: Message edited by: BEagle ]</p>

[Noggin]

2 Donkeys

Article 21 relates to the Requirement for Flight Crew to hold a Licence.

Para 5a states the conditions under which a non licensed pilot may act as PIC. One of the conditions is that they may not carry passengers e.g. solo flight or an obnserved test.

The original reference is about Flying Lessons where the aircraft is commanded by a licensed pilot; Para 5 is not relevant.

[2Donkeys]

Sorry Noggin, that is not the way I read it:

"(cc) if the pilot in command of the aircraft is the holder of an appropriate licence, a person carried for the
purpose of being trained or tested as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft"


seems to cover the case where the instructor is acting as PIC and the Pilot is PUT.

[rolling circle]

Sorry 2 donkeys but you read it incorrectly. Paragraph (b) contains the conditions relating to paragraph (a) which, in turn, relates only to a person acting as pilot without being the holder of an appropriate licence.

The section that you quote is of no relevance whatsoever to a dual training flight

[bookworm]

21(5) is, I think, designed to allow for training in multipilot aircraft. Without it, two crew plus the student would be required, which would be a bit daft. It allows the student to act as P2.

Note 21(5)(b)(ii) which requires a pilot taking advantage of such an exemption to have a licence already (or be a military pilot), it just doesn't have to be a licence with the correct type rating on.

21(2)(c) is the bit that covers ab initio training, and it doesn't have a 'no passengers' provision.

[Hot 'n' High]

2Donkeys - I agree with you on this one as it is a constant source of discussion within the Training world.

I read the pilot in 5.a as being the person being trained/examined/assessed for licence issue/renewal. He/she is authorised by Para 5.a to pilot (handle) the aircraft even though they may not have an appropriate licence to do that. Note, it does not matter if they already hold, say, a PPL and it is simply being renewed or extended, as most basic training aircraft are single crew anyway. They are therefore handling the aircraft while the Single Crew pilot (ie the PIC Instructor) sits and Instructs/assesses. One of the conditions of them being allowed to pilot Single Crew aircraft even though they are not PIC is that no other person may be carried in the aircraft (Para 5.b.i) unless they have a formal part to play in the proceedings as defined in the exceptions to Para 5.b.i.

Note that it is not a case of who is PIC. It simply states that the trainee/assessee is not permitted to pilot the aircraft if another person is sat in the back. The only exception to this is where the person in the back is also undergoing training and will benefit from the experience (5.b.i.cc). For example, one student flies one leg and then the other student flies the next leg. Watching from the back is excellent training and satisfies 5.b.i.cc. But the students need to be of a similar stage in their training to benefit and you would have to prove that through Student Records or similar documentation. The Trial Lesson (Lesson 3 in the PPL course) case is no exception to 5.b.i.cc and is one where I believe you can carry an "observer" as they are at a similar level. I brief student and observer together and ask them both if they have any questions before we walk out to the aircraft. On one occasion the "observer" came back for more but the "student" decided to stick to fishing or whatever he was in to!!!!

Finally, I would not carry someone in the back unless I could prove 5.b.i.cc as most Insurance is linked to the aircraft being operated legally. Given the dreadful situation where an accident arises the Insurance company would look very closely at who was doing what and why, and you would need to prove to them that Aunt Maud, who was sat in the back at the time, was actually training and not just enjoying the view.

Noggin - just a small point but a Trial Lesson is an official lesson - also called an Introductory Flight or Air Experience Flight! Lesson 3 if I'm not mistaken - not got a Syllabus to hand! It is just as valid as a "Stalling Lesson" or "PFL Lesson".

Fly-by-Wireless - The rules on your question are clear - no matter how "skint" you are! If you fly and don't cover your portion of the cost you are gaining free hours. The rule is cost-sharing. You can split the cost of the flight between all the occupants but you MUST pay your share! As an aside, your use of the phrase "show-off flight" is a worry to me as an Instructor. "Showing off" kills people pure and simple. I know what you mean but the phrase "show-off" sends a chill down my spine. Sadly, I personally know at least one person who died - probably "showing off" knowing the person/circumstances. Picky I know but attitude is all important in flying. Anyway, good luck with your Training!!!!!!

Regards, H 'n' H

PS Willing to stand to be corrected as, is ever the way in aviation, things are often far from clear!

[Andrew Cant]

H'n'H

Thanks for the reply. Although the rules are probably very obvious, being very new to aviation, I havn't come across them yet and this question has been bugging me regarding the definition of 'gain' in the licence regulations. It's also nice to see a FI who doesn't 'ignore the idiot with the stupid question' - thank you. (No serious offence intended to those who didn't bother replying) <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

Regarding "showing-off", I think you understood what I really meant. Certainly not in my case, but I know it is common, for parents to finance a PPL and it must be common in this situation to show the appreciation of his/her financial backers by taking them on a "thankyou" flight. I didn't mean engaging in amateur aerobatics/hotdogging round the skies.

[Noggin]

Bookworm

You are quite correct. 2 Donkeys and Hot'n'high have missinterpreted Art 21(5).

Hot'n'high

The very point I was making, Exercise 3 is a "Lesson" not a "Trial".

[Hot 'n' High]

Fly-by-Wireless - I understood exactly what you meant!!!! However, in aviation, I do believe precision pays - including choice of words in many cases! Very picky I know but it is something I encourage in all my students. Attitude in flying is all important; just as important as practical flying skills etc. Anyway, it will be amazing for you when you take your supporters flying for the first time so keep up the hard work, enjoy the training, become a good pilot and then get yourself that bit of JAA paper off the CAA. Oh, by the way, there is no such thing as a "stupid question"! So don't ever let that put you off asking.

Noggin - Thanks for your latest post. Firstly, just a small point but the "Trial" lesson is actually called a "Trial lesson" (or any of the others I mentioned) for a good reason. The aim of the Lesson is to give the student a chance to "try" out (a) flying and (b) the school before spending a fortune on further, more detailed, training. I am sure Jeremy Pratt and AFE will forgive me if I quote the aim for Lesson 3 from his Flying Training book. He says the aim is ".. to give you a taste of being airborne and flying in a light aircraft. Although no formal instruction is given, ..." Page 3.1 of the PPL Flying Training book and, NO, I don't get a commission!!!!!!!!!! I'm sure Trevor Thom says the same thing - I just don't have his book to hand right now even though I use both sets at work - sorry about that Trevor! In reality, I do give my Trial Lesson students a good brief on basic Effects of Controls and Attitude Control, thus giving them some formal instruction. This gives them a taste of a Ground Brief as well as helping them enjoy the flight itself more. So, really, "Trial" is a perfect way to describe the "aim" of Lesson 3 and has been so for at least 10 years. Also, I always encourage serious students to "try" other schools if they are at all unsure - and most come straight back!

Regarding the 'misinterpretation' of the ANO, please direct me to the appropriate reference as I am always turning people away from coming along in the back! I would love to take people along on a training flight but I have yet to see evidence to change what I have always been told and understood. Mind you, even if/when I change my view, I would spare them the likes of Ex 10a, 10b, 13e, 15 and 17a as a starter - even I get queasy doing some of those! Maybe there is someone from the CAA who would care to enlighten us. So, do let me know the appropriate reference and I will certainly follow up your lead as I know several people who would love to come along for a flight. As I said in my last post - always willing to stand corrected!

Hope the above is of some use. Regards, H 'n' H

[cessnababe]

Trevor Thom also states that ex 3 is not part of your formal instruction, but then sets out a number of important matters over the next few pages. Ron Campbell (do we remember him?) calls ex 3 "Air Experience" and states that the point of it is "to give the student an opportunity of experiencing the environment of flight before undertaking formal tuition in flying". I think that sums up the purpose of a trial lesson perfectly.

I have always thought that if you carried the spouse in the back on such a flight it was a good idea, since what you are doing is taking up another person "who has an interest in the flight". This surely makes logical sense as the person in the front seat is about to make a decision about which a large amount of the joint household budget will be tied up. There must be some sense in checking to see if the other half actually enjoys it or whether they would be better taking up golf or boating (heaven forbid!).

Any thoughts on this view? By the way my memory seems to suggest that there was a sort of CAA view on this expressed in a GASIL article a number of years ago.

[Hot 'n' High]

cessnababe - Quite agree as the person in the back also "experiences" the sensation of flying in a light aircraft. Can't recall the GASIL article though. Did it discuss the issue of any training flights or just Ex 3?

H 'n' H

[Noggin]

About 3 years ago the Head of Enforcement at the CAA tried to implement a change in the law to stop people being carried on "Trial Lessons" now if it was illegal allready, they would not gave gone to the bother. They gave up, because it was all too complicated and had knock on effects e.g. it would prohibit revenue flights to and from maintenance bases etc and prevent the carriage of two students etc. I have regularly carried someone in the back, when appropriate to do so; I deceide, there is no problem.

[Another CFI]

Cessnababe, I agree that at one time something official was published on this subject and that was the reason for my original post. However I cant remember where or when the information was published.

[Noggin]

You're right, but it was only guidance, not official, and has no doubt been lost with the course of time.

One interesting point raised earlier was that flying instruction is aerial work, it is only aerial work if it is paid instruction, if not, the flight is privte.