Your FI rating is worth just £4 a flight!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your FI rating is worth just £4 a flight!
Lots of changes in central Scotland, but the price list from a new website (but old business, maybe, it seems!) shows just a four quid premium on "trial flights" - even 90 minute ones!
Gift vouchers
Any idea of other flying schools offering the new EASA Introductory Flights? And what discount the public gets?
Gift vouchers
Any idea of other flying schools offering the new EASA Introductory Flights? And what discount the public gets?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Phew! Eyewatering prices, in my view!
We offer a 1 hour Trial Lesson with an instructor in a 4-seater for £200, which is just £2 more than the standard dual rate (to pay for the cost of producing and posting the voucher). An observer can be carried in the back, at no extra charge (we don't have an A to A AOC for carrying fare-paying passengers) We don't offer 'Introductory' flights and have NO plans to do so. If a Club member wants to take someone flying as a private arrangement and claim some expenses from them, then that's up to them, but if anyone was to start advertising, then they'd be asked politely to take their aircraft to another airfield.
Very sparse web site - I thought all web sites had to have a company name, address etc so that the publisher could be traced.
TOO
We offer a 1 hour Trial Lesson with an instructor in a 4-seater for £200, which is just £2 more than the standard dual rate (to pay for the cost of producing and posting the voucher). An observer can be carried in the back, at no extra charge (we don't have an A to A AOC for carrying fare-paying passengers) We don't offer 'Introductory' flights and have NO plans to do so. If a Club member wants to take someone flying as a private arrangement and claim some expenses from them, then that's up to them, but if anyone was to start advertising, then they'd be asked politely to take their aircraft to another airfield.
Very sparse web site - I thought all web sites had to have a company name, address etc so that the publisher could be traced.
TOO
In order to offer Introductory Flights, the organisation must be:
Is this an ATO or an approved Sport or Leisure Organisation?
The CAA has no interest in regulating this activity, but there is now a growing number of potential expert witnesses who will be happy to testify regarding the Authority's complacency when the first accident occurs!
The French DGAC has shown more responsibility by setting minimum experience levels and recency requirements for pilots conducting such flights.
approved in accordance with Regulation (EU) No. 1178/2011
(i.e.an Approved Training Organisation), or by an organisation created with the aim of promoting aerial sport or leisure aviation, on the condition that:
• the aircraft is operated by the organisation on the basis of ownership or dry lease;
• the flight does not generate profits distributed outside of the organisation, and
• whenever non-members of the organisation are involved, such flights represent only a marginal activity of the organisation.
(i.e.an Approved Training Organisation), or by an organisation created with the aim of promoting aerial sport or leisure aviation, on the condition that:
• the aircraft is operated by the organisation on the basis of ownership or dry lease;
• the flight does not generate profits distributed outside of the organisation, and
• whenever non-members of the organisation are involved, such flights represent only a marginal activity of the organisation.
The CAA has no interest in regulating this activity, but there is now a growing number of potential expert witnesses who will be happy to testify regarding the Authority's complacency when the first accident occurs!
The French DGAC has shown more responsibility by setting minimum experience levels and recency requirements for pilots conducting such flights.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 43
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Introductory flights originate from Germany. Where there groups of PPL's that owned an aircraft, but miles away from an flight school. So they allowed in Germany ppl holders to introduce potential members to flying by taking them up and getting them to pay for the flight. So that person doesn't have to travel miles for a trial lesson. Initially it wasn't allowed under EASA, but later added.
Flight schools in the UK are abusing it, by getting ppl's to do trial lessons as introductory flights. Not paying the PPL holder but also not reducing the price compared to a trial lesson. Generating more money for the flight school and reducing the flying for instructors.
Leading Edge is not an ATO but an RTF.
Part of it hangs on the caa's definition of marginal activity:
I think if you are selling these flights on your website according to this definition it's not a marginal activity any more.
CAA is not interested in enforcing this, I have seen an email from the CAA to the school in question stating that no guest control is allowed below 500ft. That would suggest that the CAA is okay with guest control above 500ft which would go against the ANO and EASA law.
It's a race to the bottom, flying is too expensive so schools are trying to reduce costs by reducing instructors pay. Getting an instructors rating is useless, no way you will get a return on your investment.
Flight schools in the UK are abusing it, by getting ppl's to do trial lessons as introductory flights. Not paying the PPL holder but also not reducing the price compared to a trial lesson. Generating more money for the flight school and reducing the flying for instructors.
Leading Edge is not an ATO but an RTF.
Part of it hangs on the caa's definition of marginal activity:
The term marginal activity should be understood as representing a very minor part of the overall activity of an organisation, mainly for the purpose of promoting itself or attracting new students or members. An organisation intending to offer such flights as regular business activity is not considered to meet the condition of marginal activity. Also, flights organised with the sole intent to generate income for the organisation are not considered to be a marginal activity.
CAA is not interested in enforcing this, I have seen an email from the CAA to the school in question stating that no guest control is allowed below 500ft. That would suggest that the CAA is okay with guest control above 500ft which would go against the ANO and EASA law.
It's a race to the bottom, flying is too expensive so schools are trying to reduce costs by reducing instructors pay. Getting an instructors rating is useless, no way you will get a return on your investment.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dundee
Age: 56
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Various interpretations of the rules!
So what is the difference?
I'm assuming yourcan instructor edginton? How many instructors actually trained to provide meaningful training? Most are just hour builders! Therefore the system is flawed!
So what is the difference?
I'm assuming yourcan instructor edginton? How many instructors actually trained to provide meaningful training? Most are just hour builders! Therefore the system is flawed!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 43
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could believe it will be a problem in the future if modular students are taught to fly by instructors who only care about building hours.
I love teaching people to fly, would love to make a career out of it. Despite possibly being one of the best paid instructors in the UK, I'm forced to go to the airlines to earn a decent wage. You can get a TR for the same price as an instructors rating these days.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know of 6 schools that are now offering Introductory Flights of these schools two I know well.
They both started doing them because instructors have left for the airlines and they are unable to find replacements and I think that's only going to get worse as the number of instructors coming through is being far far outstripped by the number going to the airlines.
And if its done properly how is this a problem?
Also some of the best FI I have been trained by/worked with have been 'hour builders'.
They both started doing them because instructors have left for the airlines and they are unable to find replacements and I think that's only going to get worse as the number of instructors coming through is being far far outstripped by the number going to the airlines.
And if its done properly how is this a problem?
Also some of the best FI I have been trained by/worked with have been 'hour builders'.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skydiver,
PM me with your email and you can have a copy of the draft Strathaven Airfield accounts for 2015/16: the finalised accounts will be posted on the airfield website in due course since the airfield is a not-for-profit organisation.
For you, and anyone else's information, the landlord (i.e. me!) was paid £36,000 (i.e. £3,000 per month) - which is less than what was fixed by an RICS valuer - and no airfield user (including me) was paid for any work they did on the airfield. We obviously paid contractors such as the company that installed the new fire hydrant etc.
In the first year as a not-for-profit there were some one-off costs, and as a result I had to lend the airfield about £6,000 to keep the books balance. In our articles of association, it is forbidden to pay any interest on loans.
As for the flying school, it actually has lost money for the previous few years. It is more difficult to publish the accounts for last year since we have basically had one full-time instructor so it could be a break of his privacy to publish everything. (As a rough guide, it has always been our policy that instructors can expect to be able to earn around the UK average wage). However, the accounts do include depreciation on our aircraft and the reality is that they are not actually depreciating - which is a bit weird! So we maybe didn't make a loss!
But my point is:
Since the punter taking up a member of the public shouldn't get paid for it, the premium for a professional here is just £4!
So is it worth the professional getting an FI rating?
Or, indeed, is it worth the flying school spending time with a newly-minted professional getting them into its way of doing things?
Or do we just sling Joe Public in an aircraft and collect the cash?
ps. The website I chose was the latest I could find, but you will also see it on what may be their previous one. As to company information/trading names/RTF/FTO etc, that seems sparse on both.
Online Shop
But my point was to raise this as an example of how little premium is expected for a professional. And my interest on what that premium in the rest of the country was. No plans, though, to introduce it here!
PM me with your email and you can have a copy of the draft Strathaven Airfield accounts for 2015/16: the finalised accounts will be posted on the airfield website in due course since the airfield is a not-for-profit organisation.
For you, and anyone else's information, the landlord (i.e. me!) was paid £36,000 (i.e. £3,000 per month) - which is less than what was fixed by an RICS valuer - and no airfield user (including me) was paid for any work they did on the airfield. We obviously paid contractors such as the company that installed the new fire hydrant etc.
In the first year as a not-for-profit there were some one-off costs, and as a result I had to lend the airfield about £6,000 to keep the books balance. In our articles of association, it is forbidden to pay any interest on loans.
As for the flying school, it actually has lost money for the previous few years. It is more difficult to publish the accounts for last year since we have basically had one full-time instructor so it could be a break of his privacy to publish everything. (As a rough guide, it has always been our policy that instructors can expect to be able to earn around the UK average wage). However, the accounts do include depreciation on our aircraft and the reality is that they are not actually depreciating - which is a bit weird! So we maybe didn't make a loss!
But my point is:
Since the punter taking up a member of the public shouldn't get paid for it, the premium for a professional here is just £4!
So is it worth the professional getting an FI rating?
Or, indeed, is it worth the flying school spending time with a newly-minted professional getting them into its way of doing things?
Or do we just sling Joe Public in an aircraft and collect the cash?
ps. The website I chose was the latest I could find, but you will also see it on what may be their previous one. As to company information/trading names/RTF/FTO etc, that seems sparse on both.
Online Shop
But my point was to raise this as an example of how little premium is expected for a professional. And my interest on what that premium in the rest of the country was. No plans, though, to introduce it here!
How many instructors actually trained to provide meaningful training?
Most are just hour builders! Therefore the system is flawed!
The CAA is charged with ensuring that aviation is safe for the general public, those who join flying clubs are assumed to be capable of assessing risks for themselves, but those who have nothing to do with aviation are entitled to a level of protection commensurate with those who travel by bus, taxi or on a ferry. The CAA, in its current state of blissful ignorance and incompetent management, has totally failed to act in the interest of paying passengers, because it wants to be seen as a Good Egg in promoting the GA Challenge. Only time will tell if the insurers don't get there first!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whopity,
I know you already know about this from another post. I thought I would put it here for tidiness.
https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=...imburghFlights
So professional schools are now under fire from two directions: "introductory" flights and "cost-share sightseeing".
I can look at our business two ways: the profit from gift vouchers subsidises the pilot training, or the profits from pilot training subsidises the gift vouchers.
Because without one, there won't be the other. And without both, we are out of business!
And a flying instructor earning £15k a year from PPL training and then £10k a year from gift vouchers will stop instructing if they only get 15k a year because the gift voucher business has gone elsewhere! (yes, that's what we aim to pay, I am aware those numbers are very generous for many many other ab-initio-pilot instructors)
And we lose the opportunity to try an "upsell" as they say, i.e. sign up for a PPL course.
I wonder if any of the flying schools - such as Tayside, I presume, in the above example - know or care that someone is hiring their aircraft to cannibalise their business?
Fortunately, we own the airfield and the flying school, so the lease and airfield user agreement will be altered to prohibit this sort of activity.
I pity others.
I know you already know about this from another post. I thought I would put it here for tidiness.
https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=...imburghFlights
So professional schools are now under fire from two directions: "introductory" flights and "cost-share sightseeing".
I can look at our business two ways: the profit from gift vouchers subsidises the pilot training, or the profits from pilot training subsidises the gift vouchers.
Because without one, there won't be the other. And without both, we are out of business!
And a flying instructor earning £15k a year from PPL training and then £10k a year from gift vouchers will stop instructing if they only get 15k a year because the gift voucher business has gone elsewhere! (yes, that's what we aim to pay, I am aware those numbers are very generous for many many other ab-initio-pilot instructors)
And we lose the opportunity to try an "upsell" as they say, i.e. sign up for a PPL course.
I wonder if any of the flying schools - such as Tayside, I presume, in the above example - know or care that someone is hiring their aircraft to cannibalise their business?
Fortunately, we own the airfield and the flying school, so the lease and airfield user agreement will be altered to prohibit this sort of activity.
I pity others.
Last edited by xrayalpha; 30th Nov 2016 at 12:47. Reason: removing spell chuck errors
I hadn't heard of Wingly before seeing that link so had a look around and clicked on a few of the flights offered and pilot details. From a sample of about a dozen pilots, the majority had 100 hours experience or less - what could possibly go wrong? 
I thought part of the CAA's remit was to protect passengers, yet on this site there are people who are barely out of their aviation nappies and offering flights on a long series of nearly-consecutive days. 
I am absolutely staggered that there is no requirement for a minimum number of hours to compensate for the lack of any post-PPL training. When the first accident leads to the first legal case I assume that Wingly, and perhaps the CAA, will have an uncomfortable time in court.
A question: Wingly reads like it has been put together by a non-native English speaker, is it something that has existed for some time in a member state but has only recently spread as a result of the rule changes?
HFD
I thought part of the CAA's remit was to protect passengers, yet on this site there are people who are barely out of their aviation nappies and offering flights on a long series of nearly-consecutive days. I am absolutely staggered that there is no requirement for a minimum number of hours to compensate for the lack of any post-PPL training. When the first accident leads to the first legal case I assume that Wingly, and perhaps the CAA, will have an uncomfortable time in court.
A question: Wingly reads like it has been put together by a non-native English speaker, is it something that has existed for some time in a member state but has only recently spread as a result of the rule changes?
HFD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HFD,
It is a French company. There is stuff in the web page - with assurances from the UK CAA all is OK - and a clue in the link above with Edinburgh spelled EdiMburgh!
Your thoughts are mine - ie 70 hrs experience and 9 on type.
But maybe it will be all too late when the CAA wake up. By then there may be a few schools closed that won't re-open. And when schools close they very, very often leave a bad smell around for the ones that remain.
It is a French company. There is stuff in the web page - with assurances from the UK CAA all is OK - and a clue in the link above with Edinburgh spelled EdiMburgh!
Your thoughts are mine - ie 70 hrs experience and 9 on type.
But maybe it will be all too late when the CAA wake up. By then there may be a few schools closed that won't re-open. And when schools close they very, very often leave a bad smell around for the ones that remain.
Sadly, the CAA has totally lost the plot and has taken to making up rules as they go along; here is another example:
Where did they find a legal reference for this?
I have seen an email from the CAA to the school in question stating that no guest control is allowed below 500ft.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 43
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That wingly scares me a bit, cost sharing is allowed for flights you were planning on doing. Having a section asking for certain flights, especially from A to B, must surely be illegal.
The company that I work for has invested a lot in gaining a restricted A-to-B AOC. It costs a lot to maintain and then this is allowed....
The letter they have on the website by the CAA is not signed by anyone, so could it be fake?
You tell me, is definitely illegal for someone who isn't a FI to teach. My guess would be the CAA would have difficulty proving if it does or doesn't happen, just trying to make sure they don't try to "teach" landings.
The company that I work for has invested a lot in gaining a restricted A-to-B AOC. It costs a lot to maintain and then this is allowed....
The letter they have on the website by the CAA is not signed by anyone, so could it be fake?
You tell me, is definitely illegal for someone who isn't a FI to teach. My guess would be the CAA would have difficulty proving if it does or doesn't happen, just trying to make sure they don't try to "teach" landings.
Under FCL.900 a person my only give instruction if they hold an appropriate certificate however; where does letting someone have a go become instruction? The CAA statement appears to condone letting someone have a go above 500 feet!
The UK ANO Art 170 only refers to Instruction given for the purpose of becoming qualified for the issue or re-validation of a licence, rating or certificate. It does not make it illegal to give instruction that does not lead to a qualification.
The UK ANO Art 170 only refers to Instruction given for the purpose of becoming qualified for the issue or re-validation of a licence, rating or certificate. It does not make it illegal to give instruction that does not lead to a qualification.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 43
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under FCL.900 a person my only give instruction if they hold an appropriate certificate however; where does letting someone have a go become instruction? The CAA statement appears to condone letting someone have a go above 500 feet!
The UK ANO Art 170 only refers to Instruction given for the purpose of becoming qualified for the issue or re-validation of a licence, rating or certificate. It does not make it illegal to give instruction that does not lead to a qualification.
The UK ANO Art 170 only refers to Instruction given for the purpose of becoming qualified for the issue or re-validation of a licence, rating or certificate. It does not make it illegal to give instruction that does not lead to a qualification.
136.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a person must not act as a pilot of an EASA aircraft that is registered in the United Kingdom—
(a)without holding an appropriate licence granted, converted or rendered valid under the EASA Aircrew Regulation; or
(b)unless—
(i)the person—
(aa)holds an appropriate licence granted under article 152; and
(bb)acts as a pilot of an EASA aircraft pursuant to the derogation in article 12 of the EASA Aircrew Regulation; or
(ii)the aircraft is a glider and is being flown otherwise than for the purpose of public transport.
(2) A person may act as a pilot of an EASA aircraft without holding an appropriate licence granted, converted or rendered valid under the EASA Aircrew Regulation when undergoing flying training, including solo flying training authorised and supervised by a flight instructor.
(a)without holding an appropriate licence granted, converted or rendered valid under the EASA Aircrew Regulation; or
(b)unless—
(i)the person—
(aa)holds an appropriate licence granted under article 152; and
(bb)acts as a pilot of an EASA aircraft pursuant to the derogation in article 12 of the EASA Aircrew Regulation; or
(ii)the aircraft is a glider and is being flown otherwise than for the purpose of public transport.
(2) A person may act as a pilot of an EASA aircraft without holding an appropriate licence granted, converted or rendered valid under the EASA Aircrew Regulation when undergoing flying training, including solo flying training authorised and supervised by a flight instructor.
Taking hold of the controls would be seen as acting as a pilot?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a loophole being exploited by a certain type of school/business and it is being used in what certainly was not 'the spirit of the law' to make a quick buck at the expense of safety and maintaining professional standards.
Waiting for the first incident where a PPL was letting a random stranger have ago, when they themselves have not been fully trained in how to deal with this situation.