Joint Owned Aircraft for IMCR Training ?

[Pull Back]

Hi Guys and Girls,

I hope you can help.....

I know there was a similar subject a little while ago, but I failed to find it in the search facility.

In short I am looking to find out the rules about using a joint owned (1 third) aircraft for training (IMCR in particular), its on a private cat.

I am sure that there was something about needing the last inspection to be by a registered aircraft engineer.

If you could point me in the direction of where to find the info I would very much appreciate it.

Many thanks,

PB :ok:

[Islander2]

Here you go:

http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4W133.PDF

Regards
Islander

[bookworm]

In short I am looking to find out the rules about using a joint owned (1 third) aircraft for training (IMCR in particular), its on a private cat.

Can't be done for initial training for the IMCR, I'm afraid -- but it can for refresher training to renew a lapsed rating.

[IO540]

What if the instructor doesn't charge for the flight training?

Another option, IIRC, is for the group members to be husband and wife.

Or perhaps civil partnerships between same-sex people are also OK ;)

[Pull Back]

Thanks for the prompt replies,
it looks like its back to the 152 then :)

Never mind, it'll make me appreciate the other one more ;)

PB

[bookworm]

What if the instructor doesn't charge for the flight training?

That would work. Good luck finding someone who will give you at least 15 hours free instruction, and an examiner who will test for free. ;)

[IO540]

Are checkrides not a grey area w.r.t. being aerial work? The pilot can be legally PIC on that flight (being done in VMC usually).

Under the FAA system the checkride candidate is PIC.

I believe that in any training or checkride in a G-reg the instructor or examiner is always PIC but don't recall seeing this written down anywhere.

Also, for many people, getting free instruction is possible, from a friend. Especially if he provides ample ground school, which any instructor with a brain must of course provide, and he can charge anything he wants for that.

[bookworm]

Are checkrides not a grey area w.r.t. being aerial work?

I don't think so. The test fee makes it aerial work. Makes no difference who is PiC.

[homeguard]

You may do the IMCR test in the aircraft although not the training.

[2close]

Sorry to bring this back to the top of the pile but it is a current bone of contention in our group with the usual disagreements.

Now that there is no such thing as a Private, Public Transport or Aerial Work Certificate of Airworthiness the only issue is the purpose for which the aircraft is being operated, which is undoubtedly private.

Reading the AIC and ANO Art. 157 - 163 on this, it seems to me that the answer is simple. You cannot use a group aircraft for training where any form of valuable consideration for the flight takes place, i.e. you pay the instructor. Therefore, any such training would be a breach of the ANO.

I'm not condoning it bit I'm sure this goes on all the time and really I can't see the major issue in carrying out training in group aircraft, provided that there is no impact on any other group members, particularly in the case of prosecution for breach of the ANO, liability for any injury or damage to third party persons or property and invalidation of any insurance policy.

What about those instructors, who are charging for their services via a Registered Training Facility and what about the RTF itself? Are they at risk?

If the worst case scenario is that the trainee would potentially wind up having a serious chat down at CAA Towers without tea and biscuits and that his/her licence would be a distant memory that's fine with me; it is their own choice and they have to face the consequences but when other parties are involved I think it is more than a little selfish to place others at risk.

Whilst there are many benefits there ain't half some pitfalls in group aircraft.

[Whopity]

You cannot use a group aircraft for training where any form of valuable consideration for the flight takes place, i.e. you pay the instructor. Therefore, any such training would be a breach of the ANO.So long as the aircraft is maintained to public transport standards there is no problem.

[IO540]

I am normally in favour of being "pragmatic" ;) but I think in this case the #1 problem would be the lack of insurance.

The one thing which the claim assessor checks when he comes round (I know this personally) is the paperwork for the plane and whoever claims to have been the PIC.

Insurance does cover negligence so they will pay out for the weirdest and the most stupid of things, but duff paperwork is different.

The other thing is that - unlike the vast majority of breaches of aviation regs - this one is always traceable back in time. Your logbook entries are dated and so are the maintenance records. If the maintenance records vanish (which they usually do when the company goes bust etc) then you will be in the clear, but I would not rely on that.

It means that anybody who knows what is going on (basically all group members, and the whole airfield if it is anything like a normal GA airfield ;) ) has got you over the barrel.

As Whopity says, it needs to be on the PT regime.

[2close]

The aircraft is not on a Public Transport CofA as, apparently, such a beast has not existed since 28 September 2004, when all CofA became EASA CofA.

It is now on an EASA Standard CofA, and as far as I am aware registered for Private flights. The purpose for which the aircraft is certificated as airworthy is a requirement of the form for certification, completed by the CAMO, and I am pretty sure they will not have stated Public Transport or Aerial Work, but will need to check.

According to AIC 18/2007 it is quite explicit in that flying training is NOT covered by the exemption.

3. For the purposes of this Exemption, flying training or checking excludes instruction in flying given for the purposes of becoming
qualified for the grant of a pilot's license or the inclusion or variation of any rating in a license and any flying test required by or under
the Order other than that for a certificate of test, experience or revalidation required by Article 28(2)(a) or 29(2)(a) of the Order in the
circumstances set out in paragraph 2(e)(ii) above.


According to the same AIC the only persons permitted to conduct training on the aircraft are other group members.

[Islander2]

According to the same AIC the only persons permitted to conduct training on the aircraft are other group members.2close, that's absolutely not the case. You are misinterpreting the AIC.

[2close]

Then please 'interpret' it correctly for me, Islander2, and that's not a teddy-out-of-pram stroppy remark but a genuine request for assistance in deciphering the undechiperable - FFS, the guys who write this stuff could have given Bletchley Park a run for their money!

But you have hit the nail on the head. These documents should not be open to 'interpretation'. They should be clear and unambiguous.

If the people that write this stuff spent half as much time making it clear and unambiguous instead of pandering to the creation of pointless legislation to justify their existence and spreadsheets for calculating their pension fund, 95% of the discussions that take place over such nonsense wouldn't be needed. :mad: :ugh:

[IO540]

2close

You are right about the crap drafting of the ANO.

Do a search of the CAA website for a PDF called Summary of Public Transport. This contains an overview of what you can and cannot do, in simple clear terms.

[A and C]

Since the change to the EASA C of A the status of aircraft has been very unclear. Now it is the maintenance status of the aircraft that determines if you can train on the aircraft.

To meet the requirment (of the old British PT C of A) the aircraft must be maintained by a licenced engineer (IE no PPL 50 hour checks) and not be running the engine under CAA CAP747 GR24 (on condition extention of engine life)

I hope that this makes the aircraft status clear.

[Islander2]

Then please 'interpret' it correctly for me, Islander2, and that's not a teddy-out-of-pram stroppy remark but a genuine request for assistance in deciphering the undechiperable2close, my apologies for my rather terse one liner ... likewise it wasn't meant in the way I now see it could be interpreted (how ironic!).

And you're right, AIC18/2007 is less than abundantly clear, which is all the more unforgivable given the number of times this AIC has been amended and reissued. The CAA is appallingly bad at this kind of communication ... as a further example, how many private pilots understand the current position in respect of the mandatory carriage of ELT? Less than 1 in 20? Quite possibly less than 1 in 100! Thanks to the CAA's completely garbled communication on that issue, every single flying magazine article I've read on the subject has contained glaring errors!

But back to what you can and cannot do in training on aircraft deemed private for airworthiness purposes. Whilst IO540's reference is useful to help clarify a number of public transport questions, it has no bearing at all on this subject! That paper merely provides a reference back to the AIC. Being one of those shortly to be outlawed N-reg cowboys, IO540 has no understanding whatsoever of these G-reg public transport issues ... but that doesn't stop him regularly posting on them!!!! (Only joking Peter, how you doing ;)).

Also, whilst A and C usefully helps to determine whether the AIC applies or not, he doesn't help interpret it if it does apply!

The key to interpretation (readily apparent to lawyers, which I'm not and I assume you're not!) is in para 2e of Annex B:"the person undergoing the training or checking shall be one of the joint owners of the aircraft".

You're wrongly interpreting this to mean that both the trainee and the checker need to be owners. Not so. To mean that, it would have to say words to the effect of: "the persons undergoing the training and checking shall both be joint owners of the aircraft."

Hope that helps.

PS The exemption provided by the AIC expires on the 31st January 08. Last year, owing to a delay in the re-issue of the AIC, no such exemption was available during the month of February!! I wonder what will happen this year? When the regulator can't even keep up, you have to wonder whether this stuff hasn't got way too complicated ... on another thread, a poster has (correctly) observed that the current AIP, as amended in January 08, still gives 1,500ft as the minimum height over a congested area in the UK, despite the Rules of the Air Regulations having changed this to 1,000ft more than twelve months ago!

[bookworm]

para 2e of Annex B:"the person undergoing the training or checking shall be one of the joint owners of the aircraft"

I'd be the first to say that the CAA could often write with rather more clarity but is it really possible to misinterpret this? The trainer or checker is not "undergoing" the checking in any reasonable interpretation of the word.

[Islander2]

but is it really possible to misinterpret this?On the basis that 2close did, the answer appears to be "yes"!