Solo instructional flights-unlicensed aerodromes

[atceng]

Discussing with an instructor the possibility of flying training hours being extended with reduced fire/fiso cover at a particular aerodrome and at unlicensed aerodromes in general,in line with CAP393/793 etc it was stated that although accompanied flights would be permitted SOLO flights would not.
Searching CAA pubs. and PPRune I have not found any such stipulation.
Perhaps the flying school rules or insurance prohibit solo flight and this is confused as CAA regs.
Can anyone clarify?

atceng PPL wanabee

[RTN11]

You've already quoted the reference, CAP393

CAP 393: Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations | Publications | About the CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=226)

Requirements for aerodromes used for flying training and testing
Flying training and testing for the grant of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion of an
aircraft rating, a night rating or a night qualification in a licence need not be
conducted from a licensed aerodrome. Aircraft commanders and aerodrome
operators must be satisfied as to the adequacy of an unlicensed aerodrome for the
purpose of such flying training and testing before conducting or permitting it.
See article 208 and 208A.

A flight is for a purpose specified in this paragraph if it is for the purpose of—
(a) instruction in flying given to any person for the purpose of becoming qualified for
the grant of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion of an aircraft rating, a night rating or
a night qualification in a licence; or
(b) carrying out flying tests for the grant of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion of an
aircraft rating, a night rating or a night qualification in a licence.

Arguably when solo you are not on a flight where instruction is given, so your school could have a point.

From my point of view, I'm not a big fan of sending students to unlicensed fields unless I know them pretty well, know the runway will be of a suitable quality and know that someone will be there to meet them and complete any relevant paperwork (thinking of QXC certificate).

[Mickey Kaye]

In my opinion there are lots of unlicensed airfields that have far better facilities and are far more suited to flight training than many licensed airfields.

Sturgate being a good example

[Whopity]

it was stated that although accompanied flights would be permitted SOLO flights would not.Sounds like a local rule.

[3 Point]

Personaly, I would understand "instruction in flying" to include solo flight under the supervision of an instructor. Legally I doubt they could say otherwise.

Of course the instructor takes responsibility for the quality of the aerodrome but, if simply extending hours beyoud normal opening time that should be strightforward.

Happy landings!

[atceng]

Thank you for your opinions, I thought I thought I might have missed a prohibition in the regs.
However if as you say this is a local interpretation/regulation the instructor is the boss and I won't be able to take advantage of extended opening hours for solos even though at this airport late opening was intended to increase the time available for tuition.
Typical aviation training, two steps forward,one back.
Classic flying school 'can't do'
but nil desperandum.:E

atceng

[flystrathclyde]

We operate flight training from the above airfields; ACS Flight Training and Leading Edge. (and we are also the operator at Perth for the airfield).

We are in the final stages of offering training beyond the normal opening hours at both sites under the new rules. However, both are still licensed airfields and we need to respect everyone's responsibilities to ensure the service we provide is acceptable to all concerned.

I am aware of 'training flights' from other operators going to unlicensed airfields which I understood to be unmanned! This is NOT what is classed as acceptable.

The responsibility of operating from either an unlicensed airfield OR from a licensed airfield outside opening hours is over to the land owner and the instructor, and it is a real consideration.

As the majority of a course is dual flight, and with the instructor on board the probability of an incident is obviously reduced. By restricting solo training flights to within the licensed hours it reduces the potential for an incident when there is a reduced resource. This also presents a stronger case for all to operate outside normal hours.

Allan

[md 600 driver]

micky kaye
what about Breighton i heard theres a good fixed wing school there also on a unlicenced airfield

[xrayalpha]

ATCENG

"Aircraft commanders and aerodrome operators must be satisfied as to the adequacy of an unlicensed aerodrome for the purpose of such flying training and testing before conducting or permitting it."

Several issues:

First: on a solo XC, or even first solo, the flying instructor is the commander, and is providing instruction. The hours are logged in the student record as instructional hours and logged in the pilot licence application form as instructional hours (albeit solo ones).

Second: since the instructor is commander, if they are not "satisfied", then it doens't happen. That is the law, so local rules allow them to use local knowledge - for good or bad.

Third: I have often sent people - and still do - to unlicensed fields, often not even occupied fields. I know our instructors have flown into them in the past fortnight, for instance, and often have PPR from the owners - but in the case of Bute we have a blanket concession, so no call. (Mind you, people from Strathaven are over in Bute most days!)

Fourth: this is established practise for decades in the microlight fraternity and has not causd significant problems. Therefore, I find it hard to see why it would cuase a problem in the light aircraft world.

Finally: easy way to prove someone has been there - ask them to take a pic on their mobile of a certain feature to prove! (or as I used to do when flying out of Cumbernauld and sent people to an unoccupied Strathaven, tell me if the old hangar had fallen down yet!) Anyone serious about being a pilot has a smartphone!! I even know of instructors who put a GPS in a sealed envelope to get a record of the track flown.

Modern tech is wonderful and the "rules" - and even the interpreation of them - tend not to keep up.

For instance: The builders at Strathaven have GPS trackers fitted to their vans to log where the workers are. Never heard of a flying school fitting such things to an aircraft.

[xrayalpha]

ps. Forgot to add:

The whole reason for allowing training from unlicensed airfields - apart from Euro rules - was that there was no need for the "resources" - ie fire fighting - since no-one in ab-initio flight training had been saved by an AFF since about 1943!

(Basically, you crash and die, or you crawl away)

[mrmum]

First: on a solo XC, or even first solo, the flying instructor is the commander, and is providing instruction. The hours are logged in the student record as instructional hours and logged in the pilot licence application form as instructional hours (albeit solo ones).
How can you be PIC if you're not in the aircraft? When you send a student solo, as soon as you get out, they become the aircraft commander, so should then log that time as PIC
From CAP 804, Section 1, Part E, 3
b) The applicant for or the holder of a pilot licence may log as pilot-in-command time all solo flight time, flight time as student pilot-in-command and flight time under supervision provided that such SPIC time and flight time under supervision are countersigned by the instructor. Crediting of SPIC is restricted to students of integrated training courses only.
c) The holder of an instructor certificate may log as pilot-in-command all flight time during which he/she acts as an instructor in an aircraft.
Have greyed out the SPIC, as that only applies to integrated and it's my bold and underline in c)

[RTN11]

The whole reason for allowing training from unlicensed airfields - apart from Euro rules - was that there was no need for the "resources" - ie fire fighting - since no-one in ab-initio flight training had been saved by an AFF since about 1943!

This is very true, and at many licensed fields which are only used for training the only fire fighting resource is a clapped out old land rover and the restaurant girls to man it.

However, being licensed also means you should be able to guarantee a certain runway quality (although I agree that many licensed grass strips are still pretty ropey). Many unlicensed fields will have areas of the runway which are unusable and the instructor and school need to be fully aware of the condition before signing off on solo flights to these types of fields.

[xrayalpha]

mrmum,

The student is not allowed to fly unless the instructor gives their permission.

Yes, it does seem a bit strange - but the responsibility for the student is with the instructor, even if the student is 50 miles away!

The instructor is not logging time, but is still "in command". If I tell a student to wait at another airfield because of deteriorating weather, they wait.

If a student "busts the zone" because of poor flight planning, or not enough education - I would expect as the instructor to get my knuckles rapped too. If they get a little lost, I am ready for my training records to be thoroughly examined.

So, as an extension of that, I have a duty of care to send them to a suitable airfield.

And so, just like I independently check the Notams, I would also check on the airfield's current status. (Remember, it is a training detail, and we are first training the student on how to do this once qualified and then "supervising" them to make sure they can actually do it unaided - ie doing the checks in the background.)

This is no paperwork exercise about who logs time where.

It is practical. The instructor is "in command" because they have the responsibility.

The buck stops here.

[mrmum]

Okay, I get what you're saying now. I agree with the sentiment of your post above. If we use the phrase "in command" to mean, we've told them what to do, have some responsibility and will have to account for/justify what we did, then yes, what you're saying is reasonable and sensible.