Trial lessons without an instructor rating

[Jay_solo]

Can a professional pilot with no flight instructor rating, who works at a flight school, (but not as an instructor), conduct trial flights for the school?

[3 Point]

In other words, "can a pilot who is not an instructor give flying lessons?". What do you think?

[Rithalic]

the "trial lessons" bit gives it away a bit no?

why would bloggs pay when he/she can't log any time?
how is the school going to charge for it? as a pleasure flight? will that be covered under the school's aoc and/or insurance?

then again i could be completely wrong...who knows.

[Genghis the Engineer]

He can do e.g. tourist flights under an ' A to A ' AOC, but not lessons of any sort.

Which anybody who has passed the air law segments of a professional license should know very well of course.

G

[taff_lightning]

The problem would then come if that person wanted to carry on flying as they couldn't put the flight in their log book. It's one of those things, realistically 45mins in a log book is neither here nor there especially if you're looking at 50+hrs for your average PPL. Not technically correct tho.

[3 Point]

bit more of an issue than that Taff. If the CAA got to hear of an operation taking punter's cash in exchange for flights flown by a non-instructor and that organization did not hold an AOC there would be some tricky questions for the Accountable Manager of said organization.

[Rithalic]

seems like a really good post to emphasise always reading the small print.

"come for a trial lesson at our school*"

*you won't recieve any instruction. you will pay for the hour but not be able to log it. if anyone asks if the flight took place you must respond "negative". you will only touch the controls if the pilot suffers a heart attack (n.b. good luck). if you have any questions then don't expect an answer. thanks for the cash (sucker)

[hooligan88b]

I think we are short changed by our woeful regulator, as these joy rides (which many of them are) can only be done under the guise of "flight training".
IMHO these should be done under an A to A AOC, but generally are not in the UK due to absurd requirements for that piece of paper.
:rolleyes:

[brownbox]

In my humble opinion....

The 'trial lesson', or what we call it in the trade - excercise three is actually part of the PPL syllabus where the prospective student can have an experience of the sensations of being on board and in control of a light aircraft for the first time... The Air Experience Flight.. Some people are bought these as gifts etc..

I normally approch this with the normal safety brief but no explanation except for a brief description of the controls etc. I usually brief the prospective student on the actions for takoff then talk him or her through it as they do it. They will do as much flying as they want during this 'lesson' and I will normally attempt to get them to do as much of the landing as possible.

This flight is usually any flying clubs front window and if undertaken as above can't see what the problem is. You can't expect prospective students to indulge in spending money before they try the flying out - god knows they may not like it!!

As to CPLs doing it without FI --- don't think so!!! Spend the money get and FI!!!

[timzsta]

Once EASA comes in next year trial lessons are banned. They are to be called "Introductory Lesson".

A CPL without FI rating cannot conduct a trial lesson as it is an introductory flight. It would count as a PPL hire and the CPL should pay 50% of the cost.

[BillieBob]

Once EASA comes in next year trial lessons are banned.Which particular part of the EU Regulation 'bans' trial lessons?

[Genghis the Engineer]

There is surely a big difference between "banned" and "the name will be changed".

G

[Whopity]

Trial Flight and Introductory Lesson are just fancy names used to attract customers who are not initially coming with the intention of learning to fly.

A flying lesson is exactly that no matter what else you might call it, and can only be given by a person holding a Flight Instructor rating. If a person pays for a flight that is not a lesson, then its public transport and needs to be conducted under the auspices of an AOC. Flying clubs are exempt from the requirement to have an AOC solely for the purpose of giving lessons. Private flights are another issue, people who walk through the door and pay for a flight are not going on a private flight. Ask yourself a very simple question, would the flight still go if the said person did not pay to go on it!

There are numerous reports of unqualified pilots giving trial lessons, if they are caught the CAA will prosecute them if they can get enough evidence. Usually the punter doesn't complain, so its down to people in the industry to report such activity.

[Piper.Classique]

Different countries have different rules. In France an aeroclub can allow members with PPL and over 200 hours P1, 30 hours in the last 12 months, and a class two medical within the last year (whatever the pilot's age) to conduct air experience flights as long as this does not represent more than ten per cent of the club's total hours on its SEP fleet. The aircraft can be full, back seats occupied, and the club can charge any rate it chooses, no payment to the pilot. This is in addition to any air experience flights sold at an airshow run by the club. Not saying if it is good or bad, just pointing out that not everyone has the same rules. The time can't count towards the passenger's licence if he or she decides to do a PPL.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Can a professional pilot with no flight instructor rating, who works at a flight school, (but not as an instructor), conduct trial flights for the school?

:} :8: :yuk: :p :)... Very Funny ......... Oh wait you appear to be serious :rolleyes:

[Pilot DAR]

Would a professional pilot, who works at a flight school, but is not an instructor, conduct trial flights for the school? A professional pilot will know the bounds of his privilege to fly for hire, and fly within them....

[Whopity]

Would a professional pilot, who works at a flight school, but is not an instructor,Why would a "professional" pilot who is not an instructor work at a flying school? This would imply that he is either the owner, a ground instructor or perhaps the cleaner!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Because there's a job to be done and he's still looking for a flying job presumably.

G

[Cows getting bigger]

Almost as good as the FI without a CPL getting paid a relative fortune for washing aircraft and answering the phones. :eek:

Anyone got a reference regarding EASA's potential line on trail lessons?

[S-Works]

do you mean trail or trial...

[BillieBob]

Anyone got a reference regarding EASA's potential line on trail lessons?Unlikely, as there is no mention of the subject in the Aircrew Regulation.

[justmaybe]

The whole issue of trial or introductory flights is fraught with unnecessary complication. The CAA legal department issued a guide as what may or may not constitute a trial flying lesson, and whether it was (then) deemed to be public transport or something else. The interpretation and definitions in the ANO verge on being ridiculous, and are unhelpful. To cut to the chase however, the holder of a professional pilots licence without a current FI Rating cannot provide a trial or introductory flying lesson. Equally, a pilot holding such licence and rating cannot provide a 'pleasure' or 'sightseeing' flight for reward/remuneration unless conducted in accordance with a valid AOC. The advice for Pilot Instructors is be very careful about the exact nature of the flight you are undertaking. When it all goes okay, you wont hear anymore, but the day when an incident occurs you will soon find out whether people were on board for a trial lesson or something different. You will be doing the explaining. The devil is in the detail.

[Whopity]

Actually, there is very little to explain. If a flight is conducted in a flying club and the pilot is an instructor then potentially any flight could legally be a lesson and it is up to the authorities to prove it isn't. That is very difficult, which explains why certain "non instructors" manage to get away with illegal lessons. Unless you are carrying out blatantly illegal activity, you have nothing to worry about except perhaps instructor liability, which few carry. You have 10 times more chance of being sued by the family of the deceased than for wrong doing by the authorities.

[mrmum]

A number of years ago, I was CFI at a school and we had a TL/experience flight, (whatever you want to call it), suffer an engine failure and have to carry out a forced landing. There were two people in the back seats as well as the "student", there was a full aircraft emergency response from the police/fire/ambulance and no injuries to the occupants, but substantial aircraft damage.
We had no problems at all from the police, CAA or AAIB (DfT), once we had established all the paperwork was in order.
Once the 48 hours of media frenzy had passed, all the issues were from our insurers and the NWNF bottom-feeding legal industry. There was initially some concern regarding the status of the rear-seat passengers, which I was fortunately able to put to rest by producing the guidance from the CAA mentioned by justmaybe. That was followed by well over a year of grief from the passenger's lawyers. They had mysteriously developed a host of medical problems (since being released injury-free by the paramedics:rolleyes:) and psychological trauma, which was apparently ruining their lives and could only be relieved by ££££££'s.:*
It also transpired that they had also lost or had damaged in the crash, a multitude of expensive cameras, watches, phones and jewellery. IIRC the insurers settled out of court for a few thousand per person.:ugh:

[julian_storey]

Which anybody who has passed the air law segments of a professional license should know very well of course.

What he said!

How can a professional pilot (or even a Private Pilot for that matter!) not know this stuff?

[foxmoth]

I think we are short changed by our woeful regulator, as these joy rides (which many of them are) can only be done under the guise of "flight training".
IMHO these should be done under an A to A AOC, but generally are not in the UK due to absurd requirements for that piece of paper.

I have conducted both (being both an ATPL holder and and Instructor) most of these Trial Lessons are sold, and conducted, as lessons - i.e. the purchaser receiving a briefing and then some airborne instructing including hands on time in the aircraft. this is what the punter buys and normally what he gets. If he buys a Pleasure Flight this is different, no briefing other than a safety brief and no instruction other than "Look to your right/left" -No safer, you get less from it,often a shorter flight - Oh, and it costs a lot more as well, partly due to that AOC that you so want everyone to have!

[Whopity]

I think you are missing the point. A person who hires an aircraft for public transport has a reasonable expectation of arriving safely. Like any form of public transport, a taxi, a bus, a train or an aircraft there have to be certain safeguards in place to ensure that unnecessary dangers have been eliminated, hence an AOC. A Flying club is a group of private individuals who are prepared to accept that their activity may have an element of risk attached and can make their mind up whether or not to accept it. The AOC holder has to pay for the certification process whereas the flying club is left to their own devices.

The unsuspecting punter who comes in the door for a trial flight has no concept of the different levels of supervision and certification, but probably assumes they are the same. If you go scuba diving or bungee jumping you will be made aware of the dangers, maybe flying clubs should follow a similar process.

In practice there is no reason why a flying club flight should not have a comparable level of safety to an AOC operation however; it has not been subject to the same level of scrutiny and cost, and there remains an uncertified element of risk.

[justmaybe]

Whopity I do not think Alister is missing the point. Some schools/clubs go to a good deal of effort to inform 'punters' exactly what is involved in a trial or introductory flying lesson, including life insurance implications and inherent risks, whereas others may take a more cavalier attitude and in reality wrap up a 'pleasure' flight as a trial lesson, putting as many people as possible in the a/c, and in some cases imposing additional charges for doing so. In real terms the level of safety vis-a-vis a trial lesson flight and a pleasure flight conducted under a restricted AOC are probably in equilibrium. If an accident should occur resulting in death or injury in either case, they will both be judged broadly similar - duty of care/risk assessment/reasoanble foresight etc etc. In this limited area of aerial activity (localised pleasure flights/trial lessons) there is a cogent argument that both should be subject to regulation, but probably not to the level and expense required for a (restricted) AOC. There is no reason why a simplified system could not be put in place that would adequately provide good advice, guidance and direction; Instead we have an unfortunate mish-mash of loose guidance that attends trial or introductory lessons in particular. The Authority could and should take a more proactive stance, and not wait to be forced into action by accident or incident in the future.

[Whopity]

and in some cases imposing additional charges for doing so.then it is blatantly illegal and should be dealt with under the current legislation that is quite adequate. As always proof is the issue and changing legislation will not change that. There is no reason why a simplified system could not be put in place that would adequately provide good advice, guidance and directionSome people seem to need instructions on how to do everything, no doubt a result of the Nanny State we find ourselves in! The current guidance is quite clear and with the garbage that's about to descend on us from Europe, there is no reason why anyone should waste time making more unenforceable rules.

[justmaybe]

Whopity I don't wholly disagree, but what I am saying is that at the level of introductory lessons/pleasure flights the legislation is such that you could drive a coach and horses through it. Both the interpretation provisions of the ANO and the guidance on aerial work/public transport produced by the Authority are anything but clear, and completely out of kilter with other EU and non EU countries. What I am saying is that with a little contemporary thinking it would be possible to have clear and simple regulatory provisions for operations at this level. That is noting to do with the nanny state - completely the opposite.

[Whopity]

Is there a safety issue? If not; its not the CAAs job to produce rules and guidance on how the industry should operate. I'm pleased to say we have a tradition of having reasoned regulation in this country unlike mainland Europe where they are rule obsessed, and then half the States ignore them.

[justmaybe]

Whopity, as it happens I do not believe there is a safety issue. I think the professionals flying trial flying lessons or pleasure flights have an enviable safety record and, by and large, do an excellent job. I do however feel that if the Authority of its own volition seeks to draft legislation in terminology that is largely archaic (reminiscent of that found in the 19th century statutes) then it should provide clear and unequivocal guidance. That apart, it displays an uncanny knack of turning that which should be simple into bizarre complex. Let me give an example. Flying club provinding trial lessons wishes to do pleasure flying. Just look at the process and cost of an AtoA AOC. I am not anti-authority, but i am extremely frustrated with the Authority's readiness to embrace the highly questionable dictats from EASA on the one hand, and its inability to understand and provide workable solutions for GA operations in the sphere alluded to. I apologise for this starting to drift from the OP, but it does open a much wider debate than was perhaps intended.

[WestWind1950]

no instructors rating, then NO trial lessons!

In Germany it is legal to give pleasure flights in aircraft with 4 seats or less and even be paid for it, which is a big financial help for clubs. "Officially" the clubs are not allowed to advertise it or make a profit from it. If they do, then it's considered commercial and you need an AOC.

Some AOC holders have taken clubs to court because they felt the clubs were too much "competition", i.e. stealing potential customers from them. :ugh:

Especially balloonists misuse the above mentioned legal use for flights in balloons officially certified for not more then 4 persons. But, as with club pleasure flights, it's all very hard to prove.

I was once an instructor at a school with an AOC. At the time I didn't have a CPL, so I could conduct training flights but NOT pleasure flights! I did find that a bit odd, but that's the way it was. But, as already mentioned, the other way around CPL with no instructor for training flights, is a BIG no-no! :=

And I have also heard that EASA will kill the possibility for clubs to continue doing the above mentioned pleasure flights.

[Whopity]

but i am extremely frustrated with the Authority's readiness to embrace the highly questionable dictats from EASA on the one hand,Sadly, they have no choice, some States may turn a blind eye but that's not the UK way. and its inability to understand and provide workable solutions for GA operations in the sphere alluded toThat is not the CAA's job, their role is to regulate for safety nothing else! Under EASA that function is largely being removed, leaving them with no tools to perform their primary task.And I have also heard that EASA will kill the possibility for clubs to continue doing the above mentioned pleasure flights.EASA is responsible for the worst piece of legislation in the history of aviation; it should not come as any surprise as it is typical of all the other garbage that emanates from the EP.

[Mach Jump]

I'm surprised that no one has yet attempted to point out where, exactly, it says that training, other than for the issue of a licence or rating, has to be conducted by a Flight Instructor. Is it possible that there is no such requirement?

MJ

[Whopity]

where, exactly, it says that training, other than for the issue of a licence or rating, has to be conducted by a Flight InstructorIt doesn't say it anywhere however; it is "flying training" that is exempted from the requirement to hold an AOC, so if its not Flying Training as defined in the ANO, then it can only be a Private Flight where the pilot must pay his share, or its Public Transport and requires an AOC. The choice is simple!

[BillieBob]

The 'trial lesson' is, by accepted definition, a lesson in a course leading to the issue of a PPL and an FI rating is, therefore, required to conduct it. In any case this will all be resolved, in the UK at least, on 1 July next year when Annex 1 to the Aircrew Regulation (a.k.a. Part-FCL) is implemented. Thereafter, nobody may give any flight instruction in an aircraft unless they hold an appropriate instructor certificate.

[Mach Jump]

So, what is the ANO definition of flying training? And do you have an ANO reference?

[Whopity]

I am sure you are quite capable of looking it up but if not:
Instruction in flying
80.—(1) This article applies to instruction in flying given to any person flying or about to fly
a flying machine or glider for the purpose of becoming qualified for—
(a) the grant of a pilot’s licence; or
(b) the inclusion or variation of any rating or qualification in a pilot’s licence.
(2) A person must not give any instruction in flying to which this article applies unless—
(a) they hold a licence, granted or rendered valid under this Order or a JAA licence, entitling
them to act as pilot in command of the aircraft for the purpose and in the circumstances
under which the instruction is to be given; and
(b) the licence includes an instructor’s rating entitling the holder to give the instruction.If you don't meet the above criteria then its not a lesson so back to my previous post.

[Mach Jump]

I think that Article 80 makes my point perfectly. The requirements of para.2 are clearly limited to the circumstances described in para.1.

MJ

[foxmoth]

Yes, but if you are charging and not instructing under those definitions it is then a public transport flight so has to be done under an AOC as has already been stated, and what do you say, having done the trial lesson, when the person says "I want to continue, how do I write it in my logbook?"

[BillieBob]

The requirements of para.2 are clearly limited to the circumstances described in para.1.Which circumstances include the 'trial lesson' which is given for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant of a (private) pilot's licence.

[Pull what]

Thereafter, nobody may give any flight instruction in an aircraft unless they hold an appropriate instructor certificate.

There is nothing to stop any pilot giving flying instruction and there never will be. Define 'flying instruction'? If a pilot without an instructors rating says to a passenger who is learning to fly, "you have a go and fly it straight and level" and offers advice and corrects errors he is clearly giving 'flying instruction', what the passenger will not be able to do is to count that instruction for the grant or renewal of a licence or rating(in my view)

[foxmoth]

Maybe so - but it cannot be done, and sold as, a trial lesson

[Mach Jump]

Foxmoth and BillieBob.

Article 80 does not give a definition of 'flight instruction'. It simply says that certain types of flight instruction can only be carried out by Flight Instructors. Any other type of flight instruction can be carried out by any pilot qualified to fly that particular type of aircraft, except for 'Differences Training' and the requirement to fly a 'training flight of at least one hour' for Class Rating Revalidation, both of which specifically require a Flight Instructor.

Flying training is Aerial Work, not Public Transport and so does not require an AOC.

So, as long as it is made clear that the flight time cannot be counted towards a licence or rating, then a 'Trial Lesson'/'Introductory Flying lesson', whatever you want to call it, or any other type of flying training for that matter, such as aerobatics, type conversion within a Class Rating, etc, can be conducted by any pilot with a Professional Licence qualified to fly that type of aircraft, and furthermore, if no payment is given or promissed in relation to the flight, by a PPL holder!

The 'Instructor' in such cases would log the flight time as P1 and the 'Student' as Pu/t.

MJ <<<<<< Runs for cover!! :ooh::ouch:

[Whopity]

Flying training is Aerial Work, not Public Transport and so does not require an AOC.Quite right however; to qualify as Flying Training, it is subject to the conditions of Article 80. If the pilot is not an instructor the flight is not Instruction for the purpose of obtaining a licence and can theretofore only be either a Private Flight or a Public Transport Flight. Which of these is determined by the financial arrangements. Unless the pilot contributes his share it is "Public Transport"

On a private flight there is nothing to prevent a pilot showing a passenger how to fly, they remain a passenger and the pilot is PIC. In the case of a Public Transport Flight that requires an AOC then no instruction can take place because a passenger is not permitted to touch the controls.

As you have mentioned aerobatics, any pilot can teach another pilot aerobatics however; both are qualified pilots, the flight can be classified as private and either pilot could legally pay for the flight. What mutually consenting adults do on that flight is up to them.

furthermore, if no payment is given or promissed in relation to the flight, by a PPL holder!What would be the point of giving free introductory flights?

[Mach Jump]

to qualify as Flying Training, it is subject to the conditions of Article 80

No it isnt! :ugh:

What would be the point of giving free introductory flights?


I'm neither advocating nor criticising these things, but the original poster asked if it was legal, and so far, I can't find anything that says it isnt!

MJ

[Whopity]

It simply says that certain types of flight instruction can only be carried out by Flight Instructors To use you own quote; that is the only type of Flight Instruction recognised by the ANO. Any other unofficial teaching on a flight that is paid for by the passenger is subject to Article 260Meaning of public transport
260.—(1) For the purposes of this Order and subject to Part 34, an aircraft in flight is flying on a
public transport flight if the conditions specified in paragraph (2) are met.
(2) The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are—
(a) the aircraft is not flying on a commercial air transport flight; and
(b) that
(i) valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or cargo in
the aircraft on that flightTo be an Aerial Work Flight it must comply with Art 259(3) and to give the instruction referred to you must comply with Art 80 as no form of unofficial instruction is recognised.
but the original poster asked if it was legal, and so far, I can't find anything that says it isnt!
A flight conducted by a non instructor where the passenger pays to receive unofficial instruction is a Public Transport flight as defined in Art 260! The provider is subject to Art 14. Unless you comply with Art 14 the flight is illegal.

To determine what type of flight it is you must start by asking the question is it Public Transport (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1428/SummaryOfCATPTAWANO2009May2010.pdf) Is it exempt by qualifying as Aerial Work, and if it fits neither case it could be a Private flight.

[BEagle]

As you have mentioned aerobatics, any pilot can teach another pilot aerobatics however; both are qualified pilots, the flight can be classified as private and either pilot could legally pay for the flight. What mutually consenting adults do on that flight is up to them.

After 2015, that will only be true for non-EASA aircraft. Aerobatics conducted on EASA aircraft will be subject to the requirements of part-FCL.800.......

Mach Jump, I don't know what point you're trying to make. Whopity has explained the regulations with total clarity; there is no legal way that a PPL holder without an FI Rating can conduct 'trial lessons' or 'air experience flights' which have been paid for by the 'passenger'.

[BillieBob]

There is nothing to stop any pilot giving flying instruction and there never will be.Never say never....

FCL.900 Instructor certificates
(a) General. A person shall only carry out:
(1) flight instruction in aircraft when he/she holds:
(i) a pilot licence issued or accepted in accordance with this Regulation;

(ii) an instructor certificate appropriate to the instruction given, issued in accordance with this Subpart;
Nothing there about counting time towards the award of a licence or rating - it will be illegal to carry out flight instruction in an aircraft without an appropriate instructor certificate. Granted, the law will be pretty much unenforceable (as is so much EU legislation) but it will, nevertheless, be the law. As to the definition of flight instruction, like the definition of 'congested area' that will only be determined by the courts if and when a prosecution is mounted.


Under the new law and in the context of the original question, a 'trial flight' that does not include any instruction may be carried out by a pilot who does not hold an instructor certificate but only under an AOC. A 'trial lesson', which implies that flight instruction will be given, may be carried out without an AOC but only by a pilot who holds an instructor certificate. The only other option is that it is a private flight in which the pilot bears his share of the costs.

[Whopity]

may be carried out without an AOC but only by a pilot who holds an instructor certificate. Presumably, only at an approved training organisation!

[Pull what]

appropriate to the instruction given
in other words for the grant or renewal of a rating or licence-same thing!

[Mach Jump]

BEagle.

Mach Jump, I don't know what point you're trying to make. Whopity has explained the regulations with total clarity; there is no legal way that a PPL holder without an FI Rating can conduct 'trial lessons' or 'air experience flights' which have been paid for by the 'passenger'.

I think that if you go back and read my posts more carefully you will find that I never said that PPL holders can give instruction that has been paid for.

The point I'm trying to make is that people shouldn't say things are illegal just because they dont like them, without being able to point to a rule/law/regulation that has been broken. I have examined all the ANO references that Whopity has given, and there is nothing there, or anywhere else that I can find, that says only training flights that are to be counted for the issue of a Licence or Rating are recognised as Aerial Work.


BillieBob.

The new EASA Part FCL is a whole new can of worms! Lets not go there just now as the new rules dont apply, yet.

Whopity.

I think you need to read the ANO more objectively, and try to avoid reading into it things you would like to be there.


MJ

[Pull what]

Well said MJ!

Reminds me of the argument of how does a training captain in an airline give flying instruction if he doesnt hold an instructors rating.

[Whopity]

Recent CAA Prosecution (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/503/Prosecutions%201st%20April%202009%20-%2031st%20March%202010.pdf)Instructing when not Licensed
to do so -
Weston Super
Mare Magistrates
Court
Guilty pleas Fine £2000 £810

[justmaybe]

The ANO and related regulations have largely been driven and drafted by the CAA, with an archaic (and lazy) rollover from very early legislation and HM Forces processes and procedures, some of which have no relevance to civil aviation (Flying Order Book??) I have posted previously that a coach and horses (to use a diminishing legal maxim) could be driven through the legislation in a large number of cases, and the cases quoted by Whopity are worrying in terms of fairness and natural justice. The CAA should not be investigating, directing and undertaking its own prosecutions; Many defendants are almost scared into guilty pleas, and the CAA cases in terms of fines and costs bear no relationship vis-a-vis equally or more serious non-aviation cases. The original post asked what appeared to be a simple question, but has raised a myriad of ideas and interpretation. That is not good law, and it is not good governance by the Authority. Contravention of aviation law at any level should not be condoned or tolerated, but lets make the rules clear, and processes fair.

[BillieBob]

The new EASA Part FCL is a whole new can of worms!I can't argue with that but, nonetheless, it has been adopted by the EU Parliament and will become law from April next year. It would be a mistake to bury one's head in the sand just because one doesn't like the content - that would be the equivalent of saying things are illegal just because one doesn't like them.

[Whopity]

Justmaybe

I couldn't agree with you more, the ANO is an appalling document which appears to have deteriorated further in the latest amendment when the entire document was rearranged to facilitate easier change-over to EASA. Fines vary from court to court and the enforcers know that one court may impose a much lesser fine than another, but that is outside their control and which court depends on where the offence was committed.

[Mach Jump]

It would be a mistake to bury one's head in the sand just because one doesn't like the content - that would be the equivalent of saying things are illegal just because one doesn't like them.

Touche` BillieBob!

But as a mere mortal, I can only deal with one set of daft regulations at a time.

MJ

[WestWind1950]

I honestly can't believe that this thread has gone on so long.

Unless you are trained and qualified to do so, you CAN NOT give a person any type of flight training/instruction!:ugh: Instructors are specially trained to do the job!

Of course the CAA does not sit in the back seat when you are flying around for fun and won't notice if you let your passenger touch the controls. But if an accident occurs and it is proven (perhaps by back seat passengers) that the passenger was flying you'd probably have a mess to handle with the insurance companies, besides the CAA/FAA or whoever.

In the German regs it is quite clearly defined (§5 LuftVG / § 60 No. 3 LuftVG; if I find an English version I'll post it).

[Whopity]

Neither can I but there are those who have highlighted how difficult it can be to interpret the ANO.
MJ but the original poster asked if it was legal, and so far, I can't find anything that says it isnt!Then lets start at the beginning:

A person is carried on a flight for which payment is made and according to Art 260 that requires an AOC

Article 259 however grants an exemption for "flight training" and the argument is that this doesn't' specify that the this training has to be for the purpose of obtaining a licence!

Art 50 lists the legal requirement for crew50.—(1) Subject to the exceptions set out in articles 51 to 60, a person must not act as a member
of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom without holding an appropriate
licence granted or rendered valid under this Order.
(2) An appropriate licence for the purposes of this Part means a licence which entitles the holder to
perform the functions being undertaken in relation to the aircraft concerned on the particular flight. Art 53 grants an Exception for Dual Flight Training and imposes certain conditions: 53.—(1) A person may act as pilot of an aircraft of which the flight crew required to be carried
by or under this Order is not more than one pilot for the purpose of becoming qualified for the
grant or renewal of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion or variation of any rating in a pilot’s licence
within the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, without being the holder of
an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under this Order, if the conditions in paragraph
(2) are satisfied.
(2) The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are that—
(a) the aircraft is not flying for the purpose of commercial air transport, public transport or
aerial work other than aerial work which consists of the giving of instruction in flying or
the conducting of flying tests;
(b) the person acts in accordance with instructions given by another person holding a pilot’s
licence granted under this Order or a JAA licence, in each case being a licence which
includes a flight instructor rating, a flying instructor’s rating or an assistant flying
instructor’s rating entitling that other person to give instruction in flying the type of
aircraft being flown; and
In the original question, the "trial flight" as described, does not meet the conditions of Art 53 and therefore the "student" cannot claim to be a crew member undergoing Dual Training; therefore in accordance with Art 255 meets the definition of a "Passenger".‘Passenger’ means a person other than a member of the crew; Art 260 specifically says(i) valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or cargo in
the aircraft on that flight the flight is Public Transport and as such requires an AOC.

The flight in the original question is therefore illegal and MJ should realise you cant just read a couple of Articles without referring to others that have a conditional effect on them.

The 'Instructor' in such cases would log the flight time as P1 and the 'Student' as Pu/t.

MJ <<<<<< Runs for cover!! BOll..UX

[Heston]

And if I was one of the mods I would lock this thread at this point since there is no need to say more on the matter:ugh:

H

[Mach Jump]

Thankyou Whopity.

If you had just used these references in the begining then I would have been quite happy to accept that you were right.

MJ