Passengers while instructing

[pondlife]

I remember that recently (within the last few months) one of the many circulars I got through the post told me that the CAA had clarified the position regarding passengers being carried on training flights.
The circular went in the bin and I now can't find any reference. I've an idea that the circular was a trainingcom but the memory's never been much good.

My current employer has a policy of allowing any passengers on trial lesson flights and, for other training flights only if the passenger is a student pilot at a similar stage of training to the student in the front. They believe that it would be illegal to carry passengers outside of these circumstances.

I know full well that there's nothing in law preventing me carrying a passenger while instructing so long as they're not charged for it but it'd be useful to have some formal clarification of this to point my employer too.

Can anyone remember point me to the reference? I'm sure I didn't imagine it.

[foxmoth]

I can't find it in the trainingcomms, FYI they can all be found here:-
List of TrainingComm | Publications | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=list&type=sercat&id=26)

[Whopity]

I think that this may be the document you are looking for:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1196/20071015IllegalPublicTransportPRCampaign.pdf
Beware its not entirely accurate!
I have been offered a flight as a passenger during a trial lesson. Is this legal?

There is nothing in law to prevent the carriage of non-paying passengers on an instructional flight, apart, of course, from solo flights by a student pilot. If the only payment made is for carriage of the trainee pilot under instruction, the flight is classed as aerial work, and no AOC is needed. However, if any passenger has paid to be carried, the flight is classed as public transport, and is illegal unless the operator holds an AOC. But if you do hold an AOC you can't conduct lessons on an AOC flight!!

[fireflybob]

It seems to hinge on the student paying for the flight but here is another question.

In the FTO I am associated with it has been suggested that if a passenger wanted to come along there would be an additional charge (dont ask me why?!) - does this matter so long as the entire trial lesson is paid for by the student?

Would appreciate any comments

[mrmum]

So do you mean for instance, that say you and your student go for a one hour lesson in a C172, your FTO will charge £170, but if you take another person in the back they will charge £180, all of which is paid by your student, nothing being paid by the person in the back?

[fireflybob]

So do you mean for instance, that say you and your student go for a one hour lesson in a C172, your FTO will charge £170, but if you take another person in the back they will charge £180, all of which is paid by your student, nothing being paid by the person in the back?

Yes, mrmum that's the suggestion

[mrmum]

bob

Well, that's quite an interesting proposition, isn't it? There are undoubtedly benefits to be had for students, by doubling-up on lessons and going in the back on other people's flights. However, that's not the issue is it, I would say that as long as the third person in the back makes no additional payment to be there, then it's legal, but I'm sure you'll get some more expert opinions than mine shortly. That still leaves you with the business problem of convincing your customers that you're not ripping them off though. By the way, if you end up with two students in the aircraft and the FTO is charging more for that, do they plan to pay you any extra?:E

[PD210]

fireflybob,

Be very careful with your wording and the use of "passengers". You cannot take up a passenger unless the establishment holds an AoC (Air Operators Certificate). If one is in place then this can be deemed a passenger carrying service.

If it is a training flight, the pliot in command/instructor can allow "observers" to sit in the back. This subject to the usual weight and balance restrictions and at the discretion of the pilot in command. They are there merely to observe the person in the front enjoying their training flight (and hopefully get something out of it as well).

I would question any flight school who try to put a surcharge on taking observers along. It just takes the p**s a bit.

[madlandrover]

So do you mean for instance, that say you and your student go for a one hour lesson in a C172, your FTO will charge £170, but if you take another person in the back they will charge £180, all of which is paid by your student, nothing being paid by the person in the back?

That would, IMHO, be illegal or incredibly close to the bone. It shows an extra payment being made to carry an extra person...

[mrmum]

I agree, very borderline:=, but probably just the right side of legal, as long as the extra payment isn't paid for by the extra person, as you put it.

[madlandrover]

Interesting point - who pays? Possibly one where a very cunning lawyer could get a case won, but the school concerned would then find themselves being audited awfully often. Especially under the new EASA ATO/FTO proposals - unannounced audits etc!

[fireflybob]

Is My Flight Legal? (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1196/20071015IllegalPublicTransportPRCampaign.pdf)

PD210, it wasn't my idea to use the word "passenger" but that's the word the CAA use in the above link!!

[Clare Prop]

What does the insurance policy say?

[PD210]

fireflybob,

Well I am shocked and I guess I stand corrected. Although sometimes I am always a little sceptical with what the CAA write down as they often don't seem to know themselves.

[fireflybob]

Although sometimes I am always a little sceptical with what the CAA write down as they often don't seem to know themselves.

PD210, you might think that but I couldn't possibly comment........!

[Whopity]

it wasn't my idea to use the word "passenger" but that's the word the CAA use in the above link!!‘Passenger’ means a person other than a member of the crew;Article 155. So long as no payment is made for the carriage of passengers it is not illegal to carry them.

[FlyingStone]

Passengers on training flights are sometimes welcome, especially when trying to learn the student the effect additional weight and C.G. shift has on aircraft's flying ability (while remaining withing limits of course) or to check if student is able to do a passenger briefing (emergencies, evacuation, sick bags, use of seatbelts, maintaining "sterile" cockpit when in traffic pattern due to ATC, etc.). All good and well, as long as passengers aren't paying for flight.

On another topic (not so far away), is person with pilot's license (and rating, medical, etc.) occupying a pilot's seat in a single-pilot aircraft legally a passenger or a pilot? For example, if you don't have 3 landings in the last 90 days, can you take a friend pilot (which is current for carrying passengers) with you or do you have to do the remaining landings alone/with another FI?

[Talkdownman]

if you don't have 3 landings in the last 90 days, can you take a friend pilot (which is current for carrying passengers) with you or do you have to do the remaining landings alone/with another FI?
The licence holder may not fly as pilot in command of such an aeroplane carrying passengers unless within the preceding 90 days the holder has made at least three take-offs and three landings as the sole manipulator of the controls of an aeroplane of the same type or class

In the case you mention the licence holder does not have the required privileges to carry a passenger (who just happens to incidentally be a friend and pilot who is current for carrying passengers, but not an instructor).
The licence holder must complete the remaining landings as the sole manipulator of the controls either alone (PIC) or with a required crew member eg. an instructor on a training flight (in which case the licence holder would be PUT), or an examiner on a flight test (in which case the licence holder could be PICUS or PUT).

Much easier for the individual to go and frighten him/herself alone and be done with it...

[DFC]

The licence holder must complete the remaining landings as the sole manipulator of the controls either alone (PIC) or with a required crew member eg. an instructor on a training flight (in which case the licence holder would be PUT), or an examiner on a flight test (in which case the licence holder could be PICUS or PUT).




Not quite correct.

There is no link between being pilot in command and being the sole manipulator of the controls (except on a solo flight).

I know 3 or 4 people who have made at least 3 take-off and landings as sole manipulator of the controls in the past 90 days but none of them hold a pilot licence, a medical and none of them were flying with an instructor but in all cases there was at least 1 passenger in the aircraft - it was the passenger (or one of them) that was manipulating the controls.

The PIC has to have the required number of landings recorded in the past 90 days. The person doing the flying and doing the take-off and landings does not need to have any experience.

Therefore the above quote misses the fact that a person who does not have enough landings in the past 90 days can fly as a passenger with a current PIC and while doing so perform the required number of take-offs and landings as sole manipulator of the controls.

[DFC]

But if you do hold an AOC you can't conduct lessons on an AOC flight!!


Not strictly true.

Taking the multi crew example, both pilots have to be rated i.e. have the raying in their licence.

However, it is normal practice for line training to be completed with passengers aboard.

More importantly, if a crewmember does not have 3 take-off and landings in the past 90 days they can fly in the period between 90 and 120 days with a TRI/TRE and passengers on board.

Single crew operators will have similar and aside from base checks you will not flind many training flights that do not have passengers on board (unless business is poor).

[mrmum]

That's really quite an interesting way of achieving the requirements, I'd never even thought of doing it like that. It might not work very well with club aircraft, due to club rules regarding PiC being handling pilot and which seat they occupy, but for sole owners or maybe groups, it could work I suppose.

However, in doing so I'm not sure how they would be complying with the second paragraph of the extract from LASORS below (my colour, for emphasis). I know LASORS isn't an authoratitive source, particularly perhaps the 2010 edition it would seem :ugh: and the ANO doesn't seem to contain the requirements to be either PiC or with a FI, which would otherwise seem to preclude people using the method you suggest.

LASORS 2010 Section F

Carriage of Passengers

Pilots not operating in accordance with JAR-OPS or EU-OPS’ are required to meet recent experience criteria to carry passengers. A pilot shall not operate an aeroplane or helicopter carrying passengers as pilot-incommand or co-pilot unless that pilot has carried out at least three take-offs and three landings as pilot flying (sole manipulator of the controls) in an aeroplane or helicopter of the same type/class or flight simulator of the aeroplane type/class or helicopter type to be used in the preceding 90 days. If the flight is to be carried out in an aeroplane at night, one of these take-offs and landings must have been at night, unless a valid instrument rating is held. If the flight is to be carried out in a helicopter at night, 3 take-offs and landings must have been at night, unless a valid instrument rating (helicopters) is held.

A pilot who has not met the experience criteria above will be required to complete the above requirements either as Pilot-in-Command of aeroplanes/helicopters as appropriate or with a flight instructor, providing that the instructor does not influence the controls at any time. The carriage of a safety pilot is not permitted to satisfy this requirement.

[Whopity]

and the ANO doesn't seem to contain the requirements to be either PiC or with a FI,The ANO is quite specific Schedule 7:(2) The holder may not—
(g) fly as pilot in command of such an aeroplane carrying passengers unless—
(i) within the preceding 90 days the holder has made at least three take-offs and three landings as the sole manipulator of the controls of an aeroplane of the same type or class; So either the PIC has 3 take-offs and landings, or they fly with another pilot who is PIC to obtain the three. In this respect they would either have to be a co-pilot, which does not exist on an aircraft certified for only one pilot, or fly it dual with a qualified instructor.

The problem with flying with another "qualified pilot" in a SPA is that the minute the unqualified pilot takes over control, he becomes PIC and the former PIC reverts to being a passenger, because there is no "operating capacity" that fits the situation.

This is an interpretation of the law given by the CAA; if you wish to chance a court giving a different ruling then it is always possible.

[mrmum]

Whopity,

I'm not saying that I think DFC's suggested way of getting 3 take-offs & landings in the last 90 days, is a good or sensible way to go about it.

My point was, that LASORS says if a pilot does not have 3/90, then they have to get their 3 as either PiC or with an FI, not just as the handling pilot/sole manipulator, with another PPL as PiC. This would seem to me to make DFC's reported way of doing it not allowable.

I couldn't and still can't, find a reference in the ANO for this particular requirement, not to have 3/90 to carry pax, but once outside 3/90 to meet the criteria as PiC (alone) or to fly with a FI.

The problem with flying with another "qualified pilot" in a SPA is that the minute the unqualified pilot takes over control, he becomes PIC and the former PIC reverts to being a passenger, because there is no "operating capacity" that fits the situation.

This is an interpretation of the law given by the CAA; if you wish to chance a court giving a different ruling then it is always possible.

Really? So as soon as somebody unqualified becomes handling pilot, that makes them the PiC? :eek: and the person qualified and nominated as PiC before the flight becomes a passenger, that seems a bit bizarre to me. I'm not meaning to be argumentative here, in fact I've learned quite a bit of useful stuff from your posts, however if the CAA have said that's their interpretation, then so be it. Can you point me a reference for that interpretation please.

[Talkdownman]

I don't really go along with some of the rule interpretations I have read above, in fact I think it is almost 'bending' for the sake of it. I think the 3 in 90 as PIC and sole-manipulator is perfectly 'reasonable' and believe that that was the intention of CAA FCL when they wrote the rules.

I do a number of these 90-day checks in my (multi-aircraft) group and I do wonder why members cannot make that extra little bit bit of effort to do 3 in 90 to keep it all simple for everybody. It only takes 20 minutes.

[DFC]

The problem with flying with another "qualified pilot" in a SPA is that the minute the unqualified pilot takes over control, he becomes PIC and the former PIC reverts to being a passenger, because there is no "operating capacity" that fits the situation.




That is the first time I have ever heard that. Can you give a reference for such a statement?

The words "sole manipulator of the controls" in JAR-FCL was very carefully chosen so that there would be no requirement for the person doing the manipulating to be PIC or even SIC. They simply have to be something other than PICif they don't have the required number of take-off and landings. In this respect, a passenger will be good enough.

Yes it may be a good idea to fly with an instructor. In fact having only 3 in the last 90 while making one legal does not make one current.

However, the law simply requires that the pilot in command have completed the required take-off and landings as sole manipulator.

As Whopity says:


The ANO is quite specific


and everyone should stop trying to add in words that do not exist just because it may be more sensible.

LASORS has no legal standing and is simply a pocket guide that has certain uses not all related to aviation!! :)

[A37575]

About 10 years ago, an attractive single mother with a two year old child got permission to strap him into his baby seat on the back seat of a Cessna 172 while she was instructing a student. The little lad happily chewed on a rusk while his mother pattered stalling and circuits etc. The CFI was a kind individual who sympathised with the young mother's dilemma. On her paltry junior instructor hourly wage she was unable to afford a baby sitter and thus could not work. But she was an excellent instructor with a good clientele. The CFI realised this and gave the idea a go.

10 years later, the now mature woman is a highly experienced pilot flying an A330. That is what I call doing the hard yards - and full marks to both her and her old CFI who gave her a go. :ok: