Aic W071/2009

[pembroke]

Browsing the AICs ,I came across this yesterday, titled "Remunerated flt. training and flt. tests in private aircraft"
I would welcome comments and possibly clarification.
I regularly conduct flt. tests for rating renewal/revalidation in sole owner and group aircraft, paid in both cases. No problem there, after wading through the AIC. But I am unable to accept payment for an initial licence or rating in a group aircraft.
All the above assumes (I think) that the aircraft is in the "private" cat C of A. Aren't all aircraft equal in airworthiness terms under EASA , with the ARC issued and the lifelong C of A?
Re "permit" aircraft , again as I read the AIC, I can train but not test, unless it's a factory built microlight.
Re. paragraph 8, I think the wording is poor english, but the implication is that both I and the candidate are both in the same flying club! How does any of this work when I'm asked to revalidate/renew an SEP rating on a homebuilt, off a farm strip.
All of the above is void if there is no payment!!

[Whopity]

All the above assumes (I think) that the aircraft is in the "private" cat C of A.There hasn't been a Private Cat C of A for several years now; it refers to the level of maintenance which, if the aircraft is used privately, is less stringent that the requirements for aerial work or public transport.

Para 8 is quite interesting, it refers to the licence privileges stated in Schedule 8, which limits the privileges of all FIs to operating within a flying club; it has always been there, and has largely been ignored as there is no definition of a Flying Club in the ANO. To enforce it would pose a problem for all commercial training and in particular the CAAs own FEs who are acting in contravention of Schedule 8!

Para 7.1 is a bit out of date; we haven't had night ratings for 10 years now; you would think the CAA might have known that!

[pembroke]

Whopity, thanks for your reply. I have talked to a local maintenance organisation and e mailed another for clarification. As far as the first are concerned an ARC is an ARC, done in the "controlled or non controlled environment" The same standard of maintenance applies whether the aircraft is sole owner, group or flying school rental.
Re paragraph 8, again thanks for the clarification. As you say ,to mandate that both FI and student/candidate always are part of the same flying club is simply impractical. There is a case to say that an FI(R) has that relationship and a supervising FI ,but if the rule was enforced sole owners and groups would all have to join their local club!! Also external FEs would have to join, (relevent re the last NOTEX).
Do I have the impression the CAA is finding work for folk at LGW? Surely a better policy would be to bring the ANO into line , implement EASA , particularly on the GA/LSA end, and above all spend a bit of time telling us all what's happening.

[pembroke]

Further input to the above.
To precis an e mail from a local CAMO (continuing airworthiness maintenance organisation)
The AIC does not define what the maintenance profile of an aircraft would be, in order to satisfy the aerial work catetgory. Apparently this is a CAA airworthines matter and not part of Flt Ops or this AIC !
Under EASA the CMR ( certificate of maintenance review) no longer applies , with the exception of Annex 2 aircraft. It's now the ARC. For aerial work, the aircraft will be covered by a CAMO, not have "on condition" components and only have very basic pilot maintenance. The best place to define the aerial work criteria is the CAMO, not the group or sole owner.
All in all, a mess. I am suprised there has been such a muted response to this AIC, comments please

[Whopity]

Do I have the impression the CAA is finding work for folk at LGW?I don't think there is anyone left! Certainly there is no longer anyone in the licensing management chain with any relevant knowledge. PLD ceased to exist on 1 Oct, and those left have not bothered to tell anyone!