Crack down on trial lessons?

[NorthSouth]

This week's Flight uses quotes from Bob Commander, head of GA at the Belgrano, to the effect that they are cracking down on the public transport of passengers by flying clubs under the guise of trial lessons. This appears to stem from a CAA press release on 6 July about the release of CAP 755 - the 'Recreational Activities Manual'. It seems this is a CAA effort to apply the long-disputed JAR-OPS 4 (ops regs for aerial work) long before it is agreed in Europe.

I have read through CAP 755 and there is not a single mention of trial lessons nor of public transport. I do think there are some issues about the carriage of pax on trial flights - or indeed taking people up for 'lessons' which are little more than sightseeing - but it seems to me CAP 755 and its attended spin are not the way to go about it.

Anyone have any idea what is going on at the CAA?

NS

[homeguard]

I've written to bob Commander. Regarding CAP 755, as you say there is not one single mention of flying schools, Flying Instructors or Chief flying Instructors. It is simply a standards document outlining the conduct of an 'air experience' but not a first flying lesson. It would appear to be for the observance of those who are not registered as a Training Facility. But surely they should therefore hold an AOC. I think the idea is perhaps to regulate more comprehensively those organisations that are flying certain types and are not required to be 'Registered Facilities'although operating as clubs.

Where Flight International has gleaned the idea that the CAA is 'closing a loop hole' used by flying schools I do not know.

Bob Commander has replied to me to say that he needs to consult with various departments in order to clarify the purpose of CAP 755 and that I should have a reply early next week.

I will post the reply when it comes.

[RVR800]

Well it woud be a start if they stopped flying school PPLs doing them first.....!

[BEagle]

RVR800, if you know of somewhere where this is happening, you MUST make the CAA's enforcement branch aware of it.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I don't know Bob Commander's take specific on this, but...

There is concern in particular about the "Red Letter Day" type air-experience flights which are de-facto public transport (jollies) but are being done often by AFIs with minimal supervision under the banner of "trial lessons".

The worry is that there's often a rush to get these through (exacerbated by the small profit the school makes per flight), and that the care and attention which would normally be applied to either a "real" flying lesson or a "real" PT passenger flight isn't being applied.

I suspect from things I've seen and heard that there may be moves from CAA to make it very clear that a trial lesson must really be a lesson - briefing, properly supervised AFI (or a full FI), debrief, logbook entry - the usual. This is primarily (I believe) so that anybody flying in a light aircraft (and paying for it) knows exactly what they're legally getting into.

If something is a genuine pax flight, then CAA would be quite right to insist upon an AOC.

Much of this stems from an ongoing movement within CAA to define "adventure aviation", what it is, and how it should be regulated. An as yet unpublished AAIB report on a fatal last year, where a "student" (pax!) on a short trial flight died along with his instructor. (Yes I have read the draft report, no I'm not going to go into any more detail).

G

[Send Clowns]

There seems to be a fundamental problem if the officers of the authority responsible for enforcement have to discuss the rules to find ot what they mean. How on Earth am I, a lowly flight instructor, expected to make decisions on which my licence might depend if they cannot understand the rules?

[FlyingForFun]

I wonder how Bob Commander would like me to deal with the situation I found myself in last week?

A lady arrived for a trial lesson with her husband. She was briefed (as are all our trial lesson students), and her husband sat in on the briefing. As we walked out to the aeroplane, once out of earshot of her husband, she asked me if I'd mind doing all the flying. As we chatted, she told me that she loves flying, and her husband had bought her a number of trial lessons on aeroplanes and helicoptors over the last few years. After a few trial lessons, she'd decided that she had absolutely no interest in how the controls work, but she just liked the view. She told me she was trying to pursuade her husband to stop buying her any more vouchers.

What should I do? Should I refuse to carry out this "pleasure flight"? Would her husband then want a refund? How would she (or we) explain it to her husband?

Or how about the 60-minute trial lesson where the student tries using the controls, but after 2 minutes asks the instructor to take the controls because s/he is very nervous and would rather sit back and enjoy the view? Do I need to return to the airfield and give the student a refund for the rest of the lesson?

If Mr Commanders aim is to prevent companies who are not registered facilities from carrying out trial lessons, then he has my support. If his aim is to require an AOC for a red-letter-day type of experience, I think he'll have a huge amount of trouble, and the best he'll be able to come up with is maybe sticking an extra piece of paper in the box to explain to red-letter-day customers that they will be expected to take the controls, but there won't be any change to the actual conduct of trial lessons.

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

[Genghis the Engineer]

Might be interesting to phone and ask him, he's an approachable chap.

G

[homeguard]

I don't think that the CAA should have any concerns as to the purpose of a Trial Flight. If they are conducted correctly then the extent that the recipient wishes to participate is beyond anyones control.

However Trial flights are an important lifeline to flying Schools recruiting students. It is an opportunity for the student to discover whether it is really something they wish to do. It is also an opportunity for them to discover whether they wish to continue with a particular school. It is also a great advert for the world of flying. It is the only way they may safely, in the hands of a qualified Flying Instructor, enjoy such a full flying experience. A Commercial Pilot is not qualified to give instruction, an Instructor is.

We variously over the years have devised short courses for those who have a fear of flying and for those that accompany others such has husbands or wifes, who enrol for a 'safety pilot' course but with no intention go further.

Should a school simply throw people into the air and not brief or give instruction then training standards should deal with them. All our Trial Flights leave us having be given a thorough brief on the principles of flight and the effects of controls. Even if they leave with no intention to continue I hope at least they will understand more and see flying as much saver and have a much more positive attitude toward aviation. Only a qualified instructor is sure to have the knowledge and training to provide that.

[fireflybob]

I read the article in Flight and had great difficulty understanding what it was all about - why cannot these people explain in plain english what they are trying to do?

There is surely a difference between a flying lesson and a joy ride.
A lesson means a proper brief, an exercise that is taught in the air and, hopefully, a debrief.

That said, what concerns me is the "perpetual" trial lesson that turns up every few weeks but there again, playing devil's advocate, they are temporary members of the club and some of them do go on to complete a PPL eventually.

I just think the CAA should have better things to concern themselves about - as Beagle says if anyone is breaking the rules that is another matter which should be dealt with accordingly.

[greeners]

As I understand it, CAP755 (copy in front of me) makes recommendations that are NOT compulsory, and is effectively a 'voluntary miniAOC'. Companies that want to be 'state of the art' will put the required Ops manual in place (or, like us, rejigger their existing Ops Manual so that it is CAP755 flavour) so that they are whiter than white. Companies that 'don't feel like it' will just not bother. So where is the value in the document? Good organisations that are probably not a CAA concern get additional admin, others will not be impacted.

[hugh flung_dung]

There is concern in particular about the "Red Letter Day" type air-experience flights which are de-facto public transport (jollies) but are being done often by AFIs with minimal supervision under the banner of "trial lessons".

Genghis, I really don't think it's appropriate to make a general criticism about the conduct of trial flights or RLD air-experience flights. There may or may not be organisations where these flights are "rushed-through" but I can assure you that there is at least one organisation where they are taken as seriously as any other lesson.
These introductory lessons are how we sell aviation to people who are not yet committed; people instructing on these flights need to remember that it's our shop front and need to pass on their enthusiasm and enjoyment.

A briefing is essential, but on these flights you will be teaching elements of most of the pre-solo exercises and plainly it's not reasonable to brief the whole lot. The briefing needs to give sufficient information for the student to be able to enjoy and understand the airborne teaching. Concerns and fears also need to be teased out and dealt with.
In my experience it's easily possible, in 10 minutes, to brief basic EoC, to outline the sortie AND to brief basic aerobatics.

During the flight the stude needs to be involved with as much as they can cope with so that they can feel that they learned the basics and that flying is something that they could master. It goes without saying that the flight must be fun and they should find their house if possible, or some local landmark that they have heard of.
In my experience it's again easily possible to do this and to teach (not just demo) basic aeros in a 30 minute trip.

After the flight they need a short debrief, the flight will be a blur, they need to be reminded of the major points and how they were able to climb/descend/turn/take-off/loop/etc., the exciting sensations, how enjoyable it was and the view, and ... the fact that the 30 minute lesson counts towards the minimum training needed for a license.

If this is done well it's tiring for the instructor but the stude doesn't feel "processed", they feel positive about aviation and may decide to take-up flying.
I believe that some organisations assign T/Ls to new FI(R)s, maybe we should be using our most experienced instructors...

Apologies for the sermon.
HFD

[Whirlybird]

I treat all my red letter days, birthday present flights, and similar as real trial lessons. I try to persuade everyone to have a go on the controls, even if they hadn't planned to in the beginning. I telling them they may never get a flight in a helicopter again, they ought to at least have a try, and not to worry, I'll take over if they don't like it. A basic briefing takes very little time, and I give a bit more detail during the start-up etc. Almost everyone has been glad they gave it a try, and some really want to carry on, even if they had no intention of doing so before. If they don't like it I take over, and I think they learn quite a bit ust by watching anyway.

So why doesn't everyone do this; it's really no more difficult?

[Keygrip]

When did these flights become "lessons"? I was always told that it was "Exercise 3: Air Experience" and that attempting to TEACH anything was a complete waste of the flight - as the person alongside you wasn't listening to a word - but just sitting there, open mouthed, at how different it was to be flying like a bird.

Absolutely, we ALWAYS got the "student" to "have a go" but it was always very very basic stuff (with you often secretly steering it with the rudder and trimmer) - but we never gave an EoC brief beforehand.

We just asked where they lived and/or worked and then tried to fly over that place to show them home from 2,000' if time allowed in a 30 minute flight.

Of course, all the patter about speed indications (but only so they could see how fast they were going) and altitude (for sake of interest when equated to fractions of miles instead of feet) went on - but nothing really educational.

First flight was meant to be pure pleasure and interest whilst deciding if you wanted to carry on for the full course - it was, as many have suggested the "shop window" for aviation training and the full PPL package was "sold" only if they enjoyed the flight. Their choice - no pressure.

One potential student that flew with us at Liverpool was sick as a dog and scared s***less when the instructor decided to demonstrate aerobatics to him on his "trial flight".

I absolutely agree that it should be a 100% honest "trial lesson" (for want of a better word) with a real potential student and not a sightseeing trip for a birthday present or whatever - one school used to charge for having extra passengers in the back seats - but it was never a full brief on the board before we went.

Lesson 2 (Exercise 4.1) was - absolutely - but not the "Air Experience" flight.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis, I really don't think it's appropriate to make a general criticism about the conduct of trial flights or RLD air-experience flights. There may or may not be organisations where these flights are "rushed-through" but I can assure you that there is at least one organisation where they are taken as seriously as any other lesson.

I have no doubt, but I am aware of concerns in some places, that's all I said.

G

[DFC]

Keygrip is correct in the description of the exercise 3 - Air Experience Flight.

There is little doubt that a very large part of the trial lesson jolly rides are nothing more than Public Transport in disguise.

Look at the stats.

How many air experience flights are conducted at various places and how many actually return to complete "the rest of the course"?

Are training providers that bad or had the person taking the lesson no intention of returning from the start?

This new CAP should be mandatory if the current situation is to continue because a) Schools should not be competing with AOC operators - they should be separate areas of operation. Furthermore how can AOC operators be required to observe strict rules on rests and duty hours when the school down the road has instructors working 12 hour days 7 days per week?

The argument about it being a lesson falls down when one can purchase in advance a 10 minute, a 20 minute a 30 minute a 1 hour "trial lesson" or even in one place pay an extra £30 to include an away landing.

If it is part of a organised training sylabus then it will have an overall set period in the sylabus i.e. exercise 3 will be 30 minutes.

Yes the time spent on each exercise varies but it varies based on the student's progress not on the size of their wallet!

To follow the same line we would see the 35 hour PPL course or (if you can afford it) the 55 hour PPL course or why not sign up in advance for the 100hour super PPL course!

Regards,

DFC

[Whirlybird]

But what law says that everyone who starts learning to fly has to complete the course? People have different desires, ambitions, and finances - some want to be commercial pilots, some to be private pilots, some to just get the PPL in their hand, some just fly an aircraft solo once, some just take the controls once. Many of my trial lesson/air experience flight students are ecstatic at having actually experienced being in control of a helicopter (sort of!!!). Some of them are actually very good, and at the end of half an hour manage a gentle turn with the cyclic and fly us most of the way back to the airfield - and in an R22, that's not that easy. They go home having learned a lot, and whether they carry on is irrelevant to that fact.

That sounds an awful lot like a real lesson to me.

[Keygrip]

Have to say that I'm now with Whirly (and many others on this thread).

The trial lesson was always done as a "taster" - 99.9% of which was a thirty minute "jolly" during which it was my aim to make the flight so much fun for both the "student" and (mainly) his partner in the back.

I used to go to great lengths to involve wife/girlfriend/partner (whoever) and get them to come along and enjoy the ride. If the student did pick it up and continue with a course then they, as a couple, had to justify spending £4,000 on aeroplanes rather than on a new kitchen or a holiday with Mickey Mouse.

I, myself, was one who went for a "pleasure flight" - which was sold as a pleasure flight, not a trial lesson at Leeds/Bradford back in 1977. I turned up at the school and asked for the advertised price. They explained that they needed three people (at the advertised price per seat) to make it worthwhile flying the aicraft. I asked "Can I pay for all three seats, then?" at which point they said, "Well if you want to pay for the full aircraft then you should do a trial lesson and then you can have a go at flying it yourself".

I enjoyed it so much that as soon as we landed I signed up for a 40 hour PPL course.

I always flew my trial lessons in exactly the same way - give them so much fun that they signed up for the course - and that's why I gave no deep rooted briefings on EoC, Theory of Flight, Exercise 1 and 2 (as this first one was 3 - go figure) etc. Most certainly NOT aerobatics - though I could see why somebody would be interested AFTER the flight. I taught them NOTHING - just let them play and pointed out a thing or two.

The majority of people did sign up for further lessons - many completed and gained their wings, some dropped out before the end. Well, at £40 an hour it's to be expected, don't you think.

[FlyingForFun]

DFC, your last post is so full of holes, I don't know where to start!How many air experience flights are conducted at various places and how many actually return to complete "the rest of the course"?There are many reasons why this might be the case. Many potential students will have trial lessons at 3 or 4 schools before deciding which school suits them the best. Lots of people just want to experience the controls once, as Whirly says. Maybe people turn up with the intention of learning to fly, but after having a go they decide it's not for them. And those are just the reasons which immediately spring to mind.Schools should not be competing with AOC operators - they should be separate areas of operationThey are not. As Keygrip says, a trial lesson student has the aircraft entirely to himself (or he may bring family and friends along in the back seat, as may any student during any part of the syllabus, although I usually recommend to my students that they don't bring their family with for the stalling exercises). He will have a briefing explaining how the controls work, and take the controls (or at least be offered the chance to take the controls) for at least some, if not most, of the flight.

A pleasure flight is a flight which is probably shared with other people, and where the passengers do not have any involvement in the flight except to look out the window and go "ooh" and "ah". On the (only) pleasure flight I did - a helicoptor tour of the Grand Canyon - I did not even speak to the pilot, despite being in the front seat, next to him, which incidentally did not have any controls.Furthermore how can AOC operators be required to observe strict rules on rests and duty hours when the school down the road has instructors working 12 hour days 7 days per week?That's a good question, but I don't see how it's relevant to this thread - unless you view the AOC operator as competing with the school, and I've already explained why that's not the case.The argument about it being a lesson falls down when one can purchase in advance a 10 minute, a 20 minute a 30 minute a 1 hour "trial lesson" or even in one place pay an extra £30 to include an away landing.The trial lesson includes an introduction to the controls. How much detail you can go into during this introduction, and how many of the controls are included, depends on the length of the lesson and the competence of the student.

For example, in a 20 minute lesson, I rarely get to cover anything more than an introduction to ailerons and elevators. In an hour lesson, with a student who is picking things up quickly, I may cover cover primary and secondary effects of all three primary controls, use of power for climbing and descending as well as changes of speed, use of flap for landing, and use of the trim wheel. Of course I can't cover all this in enough detail for the student to understand it all completely, but by the end of the lesson the student will undersand the controls well enough to be able to set the aircraft up for the descent and landing under my guidance.

Another example is a reputable school (in fact, the school where I did my PPL) where, after the initial trial lesson, they sell a package which includes all the books, etc, to get you started, as well as two 60-minute lessons. Typically this will be enough time to cover ex 4-6, but exactly what can be covered in these first two post-trial-lesson flights will depend on the speed at which each student learns. So fixed lesson lengths are certainly not imcompatible with following a training syllabus.

Comparing the length of a trial lesson with the length of a PPL course is, quite frankly, nonsense. The course, by definition, covers the entire syllabus, and its length will vary from person to person depending how quickly they can absorb the syllabus. The lesson, on the other hand, contains a small part of the syllabus - the longer the lesson, the more it contains (and therefore the fewer lessons there are in the course, broadly speaking).

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

[BingoWings]

Tomorrow I have 3 trial lessons. On each I will teach basic effects of the controls backed up by a pre-flight brief actually looking at these devices, whether they want to or not. They are learning hopefully?
Unfortunately, (using an analogy) I cannot say that the school down the road will be doing something similar in his agricultural version of a C152. This guy needs some regulating. I do not believe I do. So how do we solve this problem?
I’ve found over the years, an increase in gift voucher sales from an industry unrelated to aviation. These people are selling pleasure flights but worded legally. This I believe will give prompt for the scallywags of aviation to take advantage.
I am glad the authority has shared an interest in this. I am also pleased to see others in this topic share a professional attitude towards trial lessons. Lets be honest, it’s difficult to earn a reasonable living being flying instructors when you’re starting off and trial lessons can be good learning ground.

Bingo…

[unfazed]

Time to question the regulations and put the "cat among the pigeons"


What is wrong with doing "pleasure" flights, I have passed numerous tests and check flights, The CAA have issued me with a commercial license and I am a flying instructor to boot ! Why can't I actually put the CPL license to the full use that it is intended? Why do I have to pretend that every body who gets a gift voucher from a relative or friend is a serious poten tial pilot ?

Absolute nonsense - Rules need changing and common sense should prevail.

harness secured and fastened !!!

[Send Clowns]

By the way, I was advised to give a briefing to the student and some sort of a debrief, even if only "Well done. Did you enjoy flying the aircraft?". Then it is a lesson. Vast majority fly from T/O to base/final except for level off and any demonstration, all so far have at least taken controls (least has been about 10 seconds!).

[Whirlybird]

There are different ways of learning too. I had one T/L who absolutely refused to take control, but asked that I not tell her boyfriend! I didn't push it, and kept the flight very lighthearted, telling her basically how the controls worked, how I'd become a helicopter pilot etc. Since she was initially very nervous, tremendously under-confident, and obviously convinced flying was a bloke thing, I think she learned a lot, both about flying and about what women can do if they want. :ok:

[P.Pilcher]

Maybe he does not want to fly at all! I had a trial lesson once where the person concerned confessed in his pre-flight briefing that he was terrified of flying, was due to fly to Spain for the first time in his life in a few weeks and thought that the best way to overcome his fears was to try to find something out about this flying thing.
On discovering this, I changed my brief completely and while discussing his problems we worked out the best way to try and allay his fears. The plan was put into action and at the end I saw a man walk out of my club with the biggest smile on his face that I could have imagined. I have every confidence that he had an uneventful flight to and from Spain and a pleasant holiday!

If this isn't a perfectly justifiable reason for a somewhat unorthodox trial lesson - what is?

P.P.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Playing devils advocate here, so please kick the idea, not me.

Lots of people have posted above saying that a trial lesson is a properly conducted lesson, thoroughly briefed, tailored to the student, and from which they hopefully always get something meaningful out of it (beyond a good view).

On the other hand, I know many of the people who have posted, and to a man and woman they are conscientious aviators who believe strongly in what they do. I'd go further and say that anybody who takes the time to read and post here almost certainly falls into that category.

Is it perhaps likely that there are schools and instructors (one sincerely hopes a minority) who regard this as a cash cow and nothing else, line 'em up, don't brief them, fly them for exactly 20 minutes, don't allow them near the controls (even if they ask) and really just treat it as tourist flights.

If so, the two questions are

(1) Is this acceptable?, and
(2) If not, what should be done about it, and by whom?

G

[Whirlybird]

Is it acceptable?
Of course not! Neither are the rumoured PPLs doing trial lessons. Or anything similar.

What should be done about it and by whom?
It should be reported to the CAA by anyone who knows or finds out about it. It's down to all of us. Awkward if you work there and need the job though.

Actually, it's the borderline cases that are difficult. I worked for one school like that - no time actually scheduled for briefings, criticised and told my briefings were too long as it was "only a red letter day" etc. But it wasn't quite as extreme as GtE's example. I left for other reasons, but it was quite a relief, as I didn't feel good about the way things were run. :(

[P.Pilcher]

No briefings? I seem to remember in the days of yore when a certain Nottingham resident (no longer with us) managed to turn me into an instructor that one of the things we practiced were "walking briefs". In these you practiced briefing a lesson without any form of aids in the time it would take you to walk to the aircraft. One of the lessons we concentrated on was the trial lesson. I wonder why?

P.P.

[NorthSouth]

Just come back for a first look after posting the original question - good debate! Lots of interesting points.

aim is to prevent companies who are not registered facilities from carrying out trial lessonsWho exactly are these companies? How can they do any form of lesson if they're not RTFs?

As to the conduct of trial lessons, I agree with those of you who've said that aviators - current and potential - come in all shapes and sizes and it's extremely blinkered to say that trial lessons are only justified if the student comes back and does a full PPL course. I reckon the satisfaction level is very high among those coming back after their trial lesson, but a very high proportion of those can't afford, and will probably never afford, a full PPL course. I don't think that's an argument for denying them the brief experience.

Having said that I do get annoyed with the people who sit there through the entire briefing, apparently listening, don't ask any questions, then you get airborne and ask them to take control and they say "oh no I couldn't possibly do that". Then again it's not their fault that they don't know the intricacies of our arcane air law. Neither of the establishments where I instruct give the slightest encouragement in their advertising to the apparently widely-held belief among the public that trial lesson = pleasure flight, but they keep coming.

One final point on CAP 755. No-one's mentioned Flying Order Books. In all the cases I've ever come across these cover virtually everything that's proposed in CAP 755. And I bet most CAA ops inspectors would agree that, for your typical RTF, a soundly-written, regularly updated and fully signed-off FOB meets the criteria set out in CAP 755.

NS

[DFC]

Look at the situation simply - if the CAA was of the opinion that what happens is illegal and/or dangerous or a risk to the general public then they would be clearly saying STOP.

Thus we can take it that the CAA is overall happy to let the situation continue but within certain constraints. What they are doing is proving guidance on how to provide these services to an equivalent level of safety as would be provided for by an AOC holder.

If the "student" is completing exercise 3, what can one brief on other than the items outlined in the CAP and the very basics of flight since exercises 1 and 2 have not yet been covered.

Many airfields have signs saying;

"Flight Gift Vouchers and Flight Training"

which clearly shows a distinction between flight training and the other flights.

What further differentiates these "air experience" jolly flights are;

1. The organisation will normally charge more than the standard dual rate charged to anyone else who pays by the hour.

2. No training record will be established or retained for this new "student"

3. The student will not log the flight in a personal log book (ANO requirement).

4. An inspection of some flight instructors log books have entries for several trial lesson flights grouped together in a single entry when the flights are close together in the same aircraft on the same day.

The stats clearly show that country wide the average uptake from trial lessons is about 5%.

Speaking to some training facilities they say that they rely on these one off "training flights" for a large part of their income and thus one can see that if the CAA was to stop the practice, training costs would rise and PPL training in the UK would probably stop.

The CAA I believe in this case looked at the wider picture which many here may not realise...............how would everyone feel about a microlight QFI turning up in their aircraft at the field next door to the local Fete and selling "trial flight lessons" that day?

Not only is it legal (being a trial lesson) but it has been done in certain places.

This CAP will not stop that practice but it will ensure that the pilot does not fly non-stop 10 minute "trial lessons" from 0900 to 1800 without adequate rest or work 7 days per week every week.

----------

FlyingForFun,

The point I made is that any instructor with integrity will match the lesson length to the subject matter and the ability of the student to progress. Having the length of the single lesson matched to simply how much a person can pay in advance (the more they pay the longer spent on that 1 lesson).

If you have completed exercise 3 in the first 15 minutes of the hour that a person pays for do you ever considder landing and briefing again for exercise 4/5 before spending the remaining 45 minutes that they paid for on that? Doubt if any places would go for that.

------

unfazed

What is wrong with doing "pleasure" flights, I have passed numerous tests and check flights, The CAA have issued me with a commercial license......

Yes you are well qualified to fly on a commercial basis.

However, the organisation you are part of is not unless it holds an AOC. The AOC is in a very simple way all about showing that the organisation and everything it will do is safe.

Have a look at the costs - it is actually cheaper to set up a simple A to A AOC company operating VFR with a CPL than it is to get an instructor rating and the ratings/ approval to operate an FTO.

With the A to A you can do more in the way of advertising etc, you can also do things like aerial photography etc and you don't have to try and hide behind a pretend lesson.

Regards,

DFC

[G-KEST]

Make no mistake, trial lessons are probably the most effective marketing tool that the UK flying training industry has. A huge number, though a small proportion of the total trial lessons given, have resulted in folk learning to fly and gaining their PPL's. They have also been a real boost to utilisation and income to FTO's since the flights are usually costed out at a slight premium, especially if the nationally sold vouchers are involved.

I write as a flying instructor in gliders and powered aeroplanes also a "training pilot" on balloons from 1955 to 1999. I was also an FE from 1964 to 1999 and an FIE from 1972 to 1999. I was CFI/Manager at a number of flying clubs for over 20 years and spent my last 14 years prior to retirement in 1998 as Head of General Aviation - Operations at the CAA.

A small number of specialist organisations, wishing to carry out passenger flying in Tiger Moths and even Pitts S2A/S2B or Extra 300's for aerobatic passenger flights, went to the considerable effort of getting an AOC with all the nausea and expense that involved. One has only to read Brian Lecombers excellent articles in "Flyer" to learn of the degree of nit picking within a totally out of touch Flight Operations Department in the CAA. Those guys are expert on heavy passenger jets, not light aeroplanes.

Despite the aggro those few companies continued with their passenger rides with an excellent safety record. More thanks to the quality of their pilots and the operation than the meticulous observance of the provisions of their AOC's.

I suppose around 15 or so years ago there became apparent an increase in demand for pleasure flights in aircraft such as the Tiger, Stampe and Harvard. The AOC route was nauseous to many individuals, if not most, and the specialist vintage "trial lesson" was born.

Even with the introduction of JAR-FCL all an outfit needs to do is to "register" with the CAA-PLD as an FTO. That is it..........!!

Get a Transport category aeroplane, a freelance flying instructor and a prop swinger/strapper-in/briefer and at a licensed aerodrome you are in business. A lucrative one too. No aggro, no AOC and no full time staff with all the overheads that entails. Eureka - the promised land indeed.

You may well imagine the thoughts going through the minds of the pioneering light aeroplane AOC holders. Why on earth did we not do that, they must have thought. All that effort and no banana.

Our conventional long established FTO's continued to do their ordinary trial lessons. They usually did them well through their club instructional infrastructure and with some form of Flying Order Book style operations manual. No problems there, though on occasion having up to three persons on board did raise a few eyebrows at the Belgrano.

The emergence of the ex-military vintage jet was yet another driver for something to happen though the Recreation Aviation Manual has steered fairly well clear of that thorny subject along with other use of aeroplanes operated on Permits to Fly rather that Transport category certification.

Thus the Recreational Aviation Manual came into being after a longer gestation period than the proverbial elephant. At first it was named the Adventurous Aviation Manual as the New Zealand CAA had developed this style back in 1997 to tackle some of the grossly hazardous operations in that country. The country that invented bungy jumping just kept on dreaming up ever more interesting ways of soiling ones nether garments.

It is not perfect and it will, no doubt, get amended in the light of experience but it really is an attempt to bring one facet of UK General Aviation out of the "grey area" and impose safety standards appropriate to the task.

I look forward to reading the groans of anguish when I return from Oshkosh on 6 August. Jealousy gets you nowhere.

Cheers,

Trapper 69
:8 :8 :yuk: :yuk: :* :* :confused: :confused: ;) ;)

[Send Clowns]

DFC

Actually both companies I fly for charge less than the standard dual rate, as long as you go for an hour trial lesson. A little more for half and hour. Students who then do take up the course (and 5% seems realistic, although a lot more express interest) log the time,a nd it becomes the first lesson.

However I do admit I take the students sightseeing, and they usually see Corfe Castle or the Needles. However if willing, and most are even if afraid of flying, the student flies the trip. Would be so much easier to fly it myself, I could do so withoutthinking and talk them through all the scenery, but I let them fly as much as I possibly can, in perfect conditions with the best students that is from brake release to wheels on the runway (with the odd nudge!).

[homeguard]

As promised below is the reply from Bob Commander to me in response to my letter to him.

Dear Chris,

I have just read the Flight article and, while the content is pretty accurate, the headline is rather sensational.

The original intention of developing CAP 755 was to provide aircraft operators with guidance on the content of an activities manual if they are offering “rides” to the public under any of the adventurous type activities voucher schemes, such as Red Letter Days or Acorne Sports, etc.

I was involved from the outset in the development of JAR OPS 0, 2 and 4 which proposes a very similar activities manual for aerial work and corporate operations and there is a strong possibility that this will eventually be adopted by EASA as a European operational requirement. However, it is most unlikely that this will happen before 2007 and probably a couple of years after that. The UK CAA therefore decided to go ahead with CAP 755 in the interim and particularly as a trial for a number of microlight and gliding clubs this season.

Your comments on trial lessons or air experience flights are quite valid and JAR FCL provides the basis for these activities as instructional flights. However, I hope you will agree that there is a shift in the targeted market for voucher customers away from the would-be pilot who walks into his or her local flying club with an intention of learning to fly. The CAP is intended as a protection to any operator who is offering a service to the public and this includes flying clubs of all types. Should the worst happen and a passenger is killed in an accident, some sort of activities manual as described in the CAP is likely to show a coroner, say, that the operation is firmly founded on written procedures with due attention to the risks involved. As the manual is a voluntary code of practice, there is no compulsion to use it, but its advantages outweigh the modicum of effort involved in drawing up the document in the first place. Hopefully, the various flying associations will produce a draft manual specifically for the various aircraft activities which will be much easier to complete at club level.

Parachuting and commercial balloon operators already use very similar manuals and over the years these have proved very useful in establishing that a club or company is operating to a recognised standard – always to the benefit of the club when legal questions are being asked in pursuit of compensation for injuries following accidents.

I hope this helps, but I would be happy to chat if you have any further questions.

Kind regards


Bob Commander

Head of Policy General Aviation Department

CAA Safety Regulation Group

01293 573524

[NorthSouth]

Interesting - thanks for eliciting that response from the CAA homeguard.

Have to admit I still don't see how a whole new CAP is required when the proof of existence of proper procedures etc is already there in the shape of the FOB for all conventional flying clubs.

NS

[Say again s l o w l y]

Hmm, an interesting debate and reply from Bob.

I personally can't see where the differentiation between somebody who is thinking about getting a licence and someone who is given the flight as a present and has no intention of continuing any further.

They both fly in the same a/c with the same instructor, both have to be members of the club (albeit temporary) and what the instructor teaches will be similar. So why should there be a difference? Especially as a club/school has the FoB, why do we need more paper?

Trial lessons are a huge part of most schools business, infact without them most would fold and the cost of a PPL would increase dramatically.

The system as is seems to work fairly well but there's always the odd bad apple. I certainly know of one fairly large school that seems to do very little apart from trial lessons, from what they say they are supposedly so busy that the normal students are getting thoroughly hacked off with not being able to get a slot.

At my school we've been able to convert almost 50% of our trial lessons into new members or to come back and do another flight. A figure I can't quite believe considering everywhere else I've taught it's been a struggle to get even 5% coming back for a course.

Trial lessons aren't usually logged by anyone but the instructor since if it is to just a one off, then why go to the expense of buying a logbook?

G-KEST I think hits the nail by showing where this is aimed at, not the normal FTO's or RF's but those taking advantage of "loopholes" to do something a bit different.

One qustion though, why would eyebrows be raised at more than 2 people in an a/c capable of taking more?

[bladewashout]

What is the operating capacity if someone hires a 2-seater aircraft privately for a weekend from a flying school/operator, flies it to his home (private flight), then hires a pilot/instructor for a few hours who takes a couple of his mates up for rides around (because he's going to have had a drink and can't fly them).

Obviously the initial flight to/from his home is private, but what's the status of the hired pilot's flights with his mates on board? - is the hirer an operator at that point, or are all the flights private because the passengers are not paying? It can't be training as a home site isn't licensed.



BW

[NorthSouth]

what's the status of the hired pilot's flights with his mates on board? - is the hirer an operator at that point, or are all the flights private because the passengers are not paying? It can't be training as a home site isn't licensedThe pilot's being paid to transport a passenger. As you say, it can't be training as it's not being done from a licensed airfield. Therefore it's public transport, and would be illegal if it was a pleasure flight from and to the same unlicensed airfield - but might be legal if it was a charter from that airfield to somewhere else. (ANO Art.101)

[justsomepilot]

Just stumbled across this thread.

I am not an instructor, but it's fairly obvious from almost any UK flying school that most trial lessons are time wasters as far as training is concerned. Usually a kid whose parents paid for it, or it's somebody's birthday treat, etc. A 5% conversion rate sounds right to me, and there is usual drop-out rate after that.

The moment some school does a "trial lesson" from A to B (rather than from A to A) and some AOC holder finds out, they tell the CAA and the CAA vigorously prosecutes.

I don't see why the CAA is worried about trial lesson vouchers being publicly widely sold. Everybody has always known that trial lessons are poor at PPL student recruitment, but the training business needs them desperately.

A "trial lesson" doesn't need an AOC, but a "pleasure flight" does. However, this distinction means nothing to anybody outside flight training, so does advertising a flight which on the day will be conducted as a trial lesson as a "pleasure flight" really matter?

One could argue that the majority of flying schools _should_ be allowed to fold, on the same basis as MG Rover or Tiny/Time Computers (ie no need for them) but that is another debate!

[homeguard]

justsomepilot

You are obviously not an Instructor and ill informed. Your right to remain ignorant of the facts is protected in a free country.

[Whirlybird]

I am not an instructor, but it's fairly obvious from almost any UK flying school that most trial lessons are time wasters as far as training is concerned.


Don't you think that those of us who teach trial lessons might have a little more knowledge of them than you do? So while you're of course entitled to your opinion, you might appear less ignorant if you didn't voice it on subjects you know absolutely nothing about.

[DFC]

justsomepilot,

You are correct in what you say with one exception;

The moment some school does a "trial lesson" from A to B (rather than from A to A) and some AOC holder finds out, they tell the CAA and the CAA vigorously prosecutes.

Training flights can operate from A to B. Yes it is stretching the point by doing a navigation land away exercise as exercise 3 but there is nothing illegal in it.

One could stretch the system to it's limit and offer "trial lessons" in a twin to destinations all over the place for which people would be willing to pay. However, as I said previously the hassle and costs involved in setting up an FTO are more than what is involvde in setting up a simple AOC operation.

Regards,

DFC

[FlyingForFun]

If one of the stated aims of a trial lesson is to entice people to take up PPL training, then what is wrong with a land-away as part of the trial lesson? After all, landing away is one of the most useful and enjoyable uses of a PPL, so showing trial lesson students the full capabilities of the license we're suggesting they might like to train for seems entirely logical and reasonable to me.

I'm not sure that DFC's idea of doing this in a twin (and presumably in IMC, and why not on airways, too?) can be justified quite so easilly, though! ;)

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

[Send Clowns]

To add to DFC's comments the CAA used the fact that aerobatics were not in the PPL syllabus to stop a school running aerobatic flights as trial lesssons. The implication I would take is that any dual training that could reasonably be given towards a PPL can be given in a trial lesson. I regularly fly trial lessons and land away. It is in many ways more useful, as it represents what many people use a PPL for.

The twin would be clearly illegal though, DFC as one requirement to train in a twin is to have 70 hours PIC (unless taking an integrated CPL course).

The other thing justsomepilot said that I would take issue with is that the CAA will vigorously prosecute. I know of one case where an operator went well beyond training roles without the full requirements of an AOC, and was reported. The CAA backed off prosecution, and they allegedly continued to get away with conducting illegal AOC operations. At least one competitor threatened to stop renewing its AOC due to the unfair competition.

[hugh flung_dung]

Sendclowns:
why was the school stopped from offering aerobatics on trial lessons? - more details please as this is a strange statement to make.

There are some organisations with AOCs who use non-FIs for aerobatic experience flights and corporate days but a number of flying schools offer aeros as part of a trial lesson (with an FI) - this is perfectly legal providing it is a genuine trial lesson, as I said earlier. We want to sell the freedom and excitement of flight - there's no better way than with aerobatics.

Please substantiate your comment "The twin would be clearly illegal" - why? where do the regs say this? (hint, you may spend a long time looking)

HFD

[homeguard]

Some years ago, pre JAA, the question of there being a specific Aerobatic Rating was raised at CAA Seminars. The CAA response at the time was to the effect that they had seriously considered such a rating but that it had proved impossible to define aerobatics in law so the idea was dropped.

Spinning is Ex 11 but Aerobatics is Ex 21 in the syllabus. The RAF nearly always include aerobatics as part of their 'air experience flight' to cadets.

[Send Clowns]

That's the only info I have, it's from a former CAA examiner with whom I was discussing the work I was doing and what I wanted to do. I am not certain that the event related to JARs, it may have been under the previous CAA regulations. He said it was definitely illegal to carry out aerobatics as part of a trial lesson, the reason was that they did not form a normal part of the PPL syllabus and that the CAA had either prosecuted or threatened prosecution to stop it happening (I can't remember which he said, but I think it was a prosecution).

My assumption is that there is an underlying presumption that to have a useful lesson in aerobatics the student must be able to fly already. If that is the case you might then justify teaching aeros to a PPL student, but not to someone with no experience.

I entirely agree with you that aeros are a great way to sell aviation, and I would say that it should be allowed as there is no added danger (and I think we are greatly over protective in our regulation of certain areas of life anyway), but I am not the one that needs convincing. You are not selling a marketing device, you are not allowed to. The organisation is only allowed to charge for its pilots to fly someone in a lesson.

The requirements to take a multi-engine rating are to have 70 hours as PIC. I don't have a copy of LASORs to hand, but that is from 3 different approved FTOs, so it seems reliable. Even if no regulation states training cannot be taken before this, then a trip that cannot count towards the rating or licence, and with the student a minimum of 100 hours away from being able to take the rating course, would be very hard to justify as a lesson in a court of law.

Remember you have to justify the trip as a lesson, as a court may well take the view that the CAA does not have to show that the lesson is banned but that you have to show that the trip is valuable as a lesson rather than simply a fun flight.

One thing I learnt from another friend who is an expert witness in aviation cases is not to go simply to the letter of the regulations. You must also always be able to justify your decisions in a court of law if anything goes wrong and you are sued or prosecuted.

[FlyingForFun]

it had proved impossible to define aerobatics in law Serious risk of thread-creep here, but I'm sure I saw aerobatics defined somewhere as angles of bank exceeding 60 degrees, or angles of pitch exceeding 30 degrees. No idea where, though.

However, the POH for many aircraft includes a statement like "No aerobatic maneovres are approved", or "No aerobatic maneovres are approved except for <list of approved manoevres>". Since the POH forms part of the C of A, it is a legal document....

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

[hugh flung_dung]

Homeguard:
If my memory serves me correctly I believe it was agreed that the AOPA aerobatic certificate was adequate demonstration of skill and a rating was not required. The course was decreased from 10 to 8 hours (and cubans/reverse cubans were removed from the syllabus) at the same time to make it slightly more accessible.

The FAA define aerobatics as a bank angle of more than 60 degrees and/or a fuselage attitude of +/- 30 degrees - a bit simplistic but it seems not unreasonable.

Sendclowns:
I assure you that there is no problem in selling aerobatic trial lessons so I'm not sure where you get your info from.

As an MEP instructor/examiner I can also confirm that the 70 hours is correct, but this can be on MEP and there is nothing to stop someone getting an ab initio MEPL. I would be interested in an ANO reference that forbids a trial lesson being taken/given in a twin (although I accept it's far from common practice, the only time I've done it is when the allocated aircraft has gone u/s and we haven't wanted to dissappoint).

FFF:
You saw the definition in an FAA document. I hope we're all agreed that only a fool flies an aircraft outside it's POH.

HFD

[excrab]

What is the difference if a trial lesson involves aerobatics or not.

If a normal trial lesson involves teaching effects of controls and involves a briefing and debriefing to distinguish it from a pleasure flight then why not take it a step further and teach basic aerobatic manouevers such as loops and rolls?

Assuming that it is what the student wants and not just thrown in for the instructor to have some fun, then if it is properly briefed, the aircraft is certificated for aerobatics and the instructors rating doesn't carry the "no aerobatics" restriction what is the problem?

[FlyingForFun]

HFD,You saw the definition in an FAA documentAh, thanks!I hope we're all agreed that only a fool flies an aircraft outside it's POHAbsolutely agreed. But I think you missed my point - all I was trying to do was point out that there are legal documents (e.g. the POH) which make reference to "aerobatics", therefore it's not valid to say that you can't ban aerobatics because there is no legal definition of aerobatics.

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

[BigEndBob]

If we keep the correct defintion of Ex3 Air Experience then anything could be done on that "trial lesson".

Who started calling these flights trial lessons. Its a term we all use.

I think it started when some clubs started selling 1 hour trial lessons for the cost of 1/2 hours flying or less to try and get one over the competition.

I know, we use to do it! we justify the rest of the time by saying it includes a brief etc, which they always had anyway.
Also its sounds more appealing and value for money in an advert.

As far as RLD's, clubs should refuse to agree to do them, they tried to screw us down so we would do them for free.
Then the purchaser of said RLD was suprised they could have bought an hour flight for same cost. Often these flights were only 25 minutes. I personally was embarrassed to do them and usually gave 30 minutes.

[Send Clowns]

HFD

As I said, it is not always the letter of the regulation, it is the justification in a court of law as a reasonable. Talking to my friend the expert witness there have been many cases where it was clear that no regulation banned what was being done in so many words, but the case hung on either whether the actions could be justified in accordance with normal or reasonable aviation practices. You risk the flight looking awfully like a charter with no AOC.

This I think should be clarified, as I could see certain less reputable organisations using any loophole, and putting pressure on instructors to fly, in effect, charter flights.

The source of the other information was, as stated, a retired CAA examiner.

[justsomepilot]

My comments were based on various info, including one scenario where a man (wishing to get a one-way flight to a golf club some 200 miles away) contacted each of several flying schools resident at a particular airport.

Each turned him down, including the only school that had an AOC (for air charter) except one which did normal PPL training and they did it as a "trial lesson".

The firm with the AOC could see this man getting a flight with all his golf gear, and told the CAA who then busted the school.

What exactly was illegal about this?

I stick to my comments about trial lessons, that most of the customers don't go on to do any training. Obviously it will vary; if a school markets itself at affluent professional people then they will have a much larger percentage of good recruits.

[DFC]

What exactly was illegal about this?

If we are talking about a helicopter flight - lack of a licensed airfields at the destination golf club perhaps?

Regards,

DFC

[homeguard]

justsomepilot

I really do not understand the point that you continue to argue. In your own words you give an instance that a golfer attempted to persuade several flying schools to transport him under the guise of a 'Trial Lesson' but he was turned down by one then another. One school however, you tell us, did fly him and was reported and you say 'busted' by the CAA, whatever 'busted' means.

All the above shows that the rules are respected by the flying training schools. On bad apple dosn't mean that you axe the tree.

Let me assure you that every individual, whoever they are and however deep their pockets, that walks through the door we hope that they will continue. Trial flights may account for 10% of any schools income. The real income is from the full members who continue to learn and hire aircraft year upon year. Many of whom also support their flying club in many other ways in making it a success.

[Say again s l o w l y]

As DFC mentions, the "trial" flight would have been illegal as the Golf club was unlikely to have been licensed as an airfield, that's about the only real reasoning I can see behind the CAA jumping up and down.

The trial lesson being used as a public transport flight is incredibly rare and whilst I'm sure it occasionally goes on, what purpose is there in destroying an industry because of one or two idiots?

Trial flights are often the only thing that stands between profit and loss at most schools. The margins are extremely tight and getting rid of even 10% of business would shaft a lot of people.

It'll be interesting to see what happens now that it looks like Red Letter Days are no more. How will that affect many of the business that provide a/c for them.

[justsomepilot]

I was asking what it might have been about the flight that could have caused the CAA to prosecute (successfully) that school for not having an AOC.

The destination airport was a proper one, taking 737s as well as all the small stuff. It was a one-way flight. That's all I know.

Homeguard suggests some other rule would have been broken. I am just curious what it was.

I believe there is a rule that the passenger (on a trial lesson) must take the controls. If there isn't a rule against other passengers, then "abuse" is indeed possible.

[Say again s l o w l y]

What tosh.

If the only criteria would be to let someone have a go at the controls, then I must have been "illegal" many times. I have had a fair few people who have point blank refused to have a go despite all my best efforts.

On the other hand, if all you had to do to turn a public transport flight into a lesson was to allow them to manipulate the controls, that would be o.k would it?

The school in this case obviously knowingly took the chap on an AOC flight, without having one. That is enough for a kick in the goolies.

What I can't understand is why the school which did have an AOC didn't do the flight. Or am i missing something?

[slim_slag]

FFF/HFD,

The 30deg pitch/60 deg bank is related to wearing parachutes (91.307)

Aerobatics is defined in 91.303 as "an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight"

Back to topic, FWIW, FAR 119.1 (e) (2) allows anybody to perform

"Nonstop sightseeing flights conducted with aircraft having a passenger seat configuration of 30 or fewer, excluding each crewmember seat, and a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less, that begin and end at the same airport, and are conducted within a 25 statute mile radius of that airport....."

Seems a sensible approach (as always)

The FAA have tried to remove it, but it's the reg that allows charity flights, so they had to back off - for now....

I'd also advise any prospective student to shop around and find an instructor they can spend 30+ hours with in a cramped space. Hard to interview your instructor properly if you cannot go flying with them first.

[BigEndBob]

Would be easier if CAA allowed all flying clubs to do pleasure flying, with the restriction as per the FAA regs.
I'm sure there ain't much AOC pleasure flying, it seems to mainly boil down to the CAA using it as a means to generate more cash, nothing to do with safety.

[hugh flung_dung]

Thanks slim-slag, 'absolutely right - my memory is worse than I thought it was (I think :confused: )

This is a good link if anyone wants to look-up the FARs: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl
HFD