NPPL(M) -->NPPL(SSEA) in a PtF aeroplane

[Genghis the Engineer]

Hi chaps,

Hopefully somebody's better on the legalities than me.

I've been asked to train somebody for NPPL(M)--> NPPL(SSEA) in his joint-owned J3C-65; all good fun and within my competence and licences.

However looking the aeroplane up on G-INFO I discover it has a PtF (I thought it was on a CofA). Wading through various CAA & LAA documents it appears them that I'm stuffed and can't legally do this, nor can he be examined on it.

If I read everything correctly, my least worst option is to get him through his NPPL(SSEA) on a suitable school CofA spamcan, then do tailwheel differences /type training on the Cub.

Can anybody prove me wrong?

G

[Whopity]

I would have agreed with you however reading AIC White 001/2011 it states:Note: Training for the initial issue of an NPPL, PPL, CPL, IMC Rating, Instrument Rating or other 'ab initio' training is not permitted. The
intention is to allow individuals to pay for training that enables them to regain currency, renew a licence, learn a new skill (such as
short field landings) or become familiar with a new type etc.Which raises an interesting point, you are talking about a Class Rating which is effectively a new type.

With any Permit aircraft you need to see if Aerial Work (Flight Instruction) is permitted, if not you have your answer.

Does your candidate hold an NPPL with a Microlight rating or a PPL (Microlight) issued prior to the NPPL? If its a NPPL you are doing Class Rating training so as its not specifically forbidden. If he has an older PPL (Microlight), will this training result in the initial issue of a new licence, and if so does that constitute ab-initio training? If it does, as a CRI you are not eligible to do it.

Now see what you've started!

[McGoonagall]

Now see what you've started!

Going to love this one. The ability to train for an A from an M on a Rotax powered group A machine on a PTF would cut the cost considerably and keep continuity on similar types.

[GyroSteve]

Doesn't the answer depend on whether or not you plan to charge him/her? I'm assuming that you would intend to charge, but you haven't said so specifically.

One work-around would be for the student to become the sole owner of the aircraft for the period of training, then it would all be quite legal.

[Genghis the Engineer]

ORS4 859 says...

The person receiving the flying training must hold an appropriate licence which entitles them to act as pilot in command on the flight.

Whilst LAA TL02.9 says 4. Examination, as required by the PPL syllabus, may be carried out in a LAA aircraft, but only if un-remunerated.

That all seems to mess it up somewhat.

The fact that if it wasn't for this lot, we could train and examine him to fly the aeroplane that he's then going to do most of his flying for the next few years, is just aside issue sadly.

Ho hum, thanks for the help anyhow.

(And yes, I was planning to charge - but even if I wasn't, I'm quite sure that the examiner would!).

G

[Heston]

Its the jointly owned bit that is the problem - see ORS4 no. 803 of 1st july 2010. Instruction for Class Ratings (any licence type) is not allowed - the person undergoing the training must be entitled to act as P1. Sole ownership and it would be OK.

The exemption to allow instruction in a jointly owned PtF aircraft also says it must be carried out in a club environment, I note.

H

[S-Works]

If he has an older PPL (Microlight), will this training result in the initial issue of a new licence, and if so does that constitute ab-initio training? If it does, as a CRI you are not eligible to do it.

The CAA do not view this as ab-initio and will accept training done by a CRI on this basis for the issue of an NPPL. I have done skill tests on a number of pilots converting this way. As the CAA pointed out when asked the question, all the candidate has to do is apply for an NPPL(M) and then do the training anyway so there would be little point in forcing an extra paperwork step.

A CRE is also able to conduct the test rather than a PPL FE as would be required based on your comment above.

Genghis, why not ask to join the LAA Coaching Scheme then the problem is resolved.


edit:spelling

[Genghis the Engineer]

Bose - I can do the instruction as a CRI, it's the airworthiness / PtF regs that scupper us.

Re: the LAA coaching scheme, a slightly sore point. I applied, but apparently am not experienced enough - so far as I can tell because half of my 1200 hours are on microlights, and despite a CPL and being an LAA test pilot, not having 1000hrs PiC on SEP seems to eliminate me.

G

[steveking]

Have you seen the AIC W-001-2011 FLYING TRAINING AND FLYING TESTS IN PRIVATE AIRCRAFT.

Also I'm sure it was on the front cover of a recent LAA mag that someone had just done their full NPPL in an RV9.

I did also speak to the NPPL and although a CRI can do the training it still needs to be under the umbrella of a flying club.

[Genghis the Engineer]

And they still need to be sole owner.

G

[steveking]

Oops, sorry about that Ghengis I missed the joint owned bit.

Is it a group or just 2 owners. Do you think 4.1 in that AIC is suggesting that there may be an option depending on the way they sort their payments.

Just a thought

[Genghis the Engineer]

Group, unrelated - so no real potential for workarounds there unfortunately.

I think that NPPL(Spamcan) then tailwheel differences training on the Cub is almost certainly going to be the only way ahead.

G