Training from unlicenced aerodromes

[LD Max]

1) When a normally licenced aerodrome becomes unlicenced (for whatever reason - fire cover, runway condition etc), is it still the case that a PPL training flight must begin and end at a licenced aerodrome - requiring a ferry section to and from the licenced aerodrome?

I have heard it rumoured that training can now be logged by the student towards their licence / rating for the airborne time to/from the UN-licenced aerodrome.

Personally I haven't seen any official statement one way or the other and would be obliged if someone could point me to the current regulation.

2) Assuming the situation remains as per the former, under what rule is the ferry flight conducted? I assume it cannot be training since the departure airfield is unlicenced, and it cannot be private since the student is still paying for all the dual time, (i.e. the PIC Instructor is not paying an equal share as required under the rules for a private flight). Does this not make it illegal public transport??

Could one argue that the ENTIRE flight is training time - but during the ferry section only REVISION of previous exercises is carried out, so long as the Student only logs the time between licenced airfields towards his / her licence or rating?

3) In which case, can anyone clarify if the instructor logs ALL the time as PIC and INSTRUCTION time, (since the entire flight is a training flight), or does the instructor only log the training time as per the student?

Regards,

[homeguard]

Training for a licence as you say must begin and end at a licenced aerodrome. Remember if you are acting outside of an AOC you must be exploiting the exemption given to training within a club. One member training the other. A ferry flight therefore isn't part of that and cannot count as instruction.
As for the Instructor, like any other pilot the time is logged from the moment the aircraft moves with the intention to fly and ends when the aircraft comes to a halt following that flight. Chocks off to chocks on in other words. A 'flight', it couldn't be simpler.
Is the ferry part legal? Of course it isn't without an AOC. However if you don't like the answer then don't ask the question. We may, due to the nature of things now have a running debate about this angle and that but just the same however it is dressed up someone is paying for the ferrying portion. Aircraft and flight don't come cheap.

[LD Max]

Remember if you are acting outside of an AOC you must be exploiting the exemption given to training within a club. One member training the other. A ferry flight therefore isn't part of that and cannot count as instruction.
Thanks for your help with this. I didn't even know about the "club" exemption. I thought an AOC applied purely to Public Transport, not Training.
Would I be correct in thinking a registered training facility (for PPL) does not need to exploit this exemption in order to conduct training. i.e. the students / instructors do not need to be members of any "club". (I'm pretty sure we're not a club since plenty of Trial Lessons are "walk-ins").
I was more interested in the "licenced aerodrome" aspect. Not entirely comfortable with the idea of "if you don't like the answer then don't ask the question". Whilst I appreciate the commercial aspects that the flight must be paid for, should the flight be deemed to be "illegal public transport" in the "subsequent board of enquiry", then it would almost certainly be uninsured - with commercial consequences far more dire than I care to contemplate - for both the school and the individual instructor.
I take it, then, that any rumours to the effect that the training flight can be conducted from "wheels up" to "wheels down" at a normally licenced aerodrome which has become temporarily unlicenced, is basically b*ll*cks?
Regarding the instructor, I realise he can log PIC from chock to chock, but I was wondering if he can also log Instructor Time from chock to chock or only for the legitimate training time.
Regards

[homeguard]

In the UK flying instruction is a commercial activity, 'Arial Work' which requires an AOC. Other countries such as France see it differently. The UK has deemed that if the Training takes place wholly within a club and the Instructor and the student are both members then you are exempt holding an AOC.
The term club in UK law, it seems, is a very loose term and not onerous to achieve. Something like ,' an association of two or more persons who declare themselves so'. How far it goes in terms of constitution is up to the members. With the joining of JAA the CAA required for any club that trains for a Pilots licence or rating was to register with them and to comply with certain minimum standards, which are not much. A lot more if you wish to conduct an 'approved course' such as MEP courses.
Remember the Instructor is required to be a member and also the student including 'Trial flights' to exploit the exemption.. Most clubs under its constitution automatically provides membership to its instructors. Students/pilots enrol as members. Trial Flight students normally 'sign in' as temporary members for the day at least and the charge is deemed to be included in the trial flight cost.
The pilot logs the flight 'chock to chock' and instruction from when it commences to when it ends, in most case the two will be the same. Not in the case of a 'ferry flight'.
When a licenced aerodrome is unable to meet its licencing standard then the licence is not valid until it does. Flights requiring a Licenced aerodrome cannot operate during that period.
The CAA, it would seem, show a high degree of tolerance and are not pro-active with regard to ferry flights. BUT, it would only need a party to complain and they will have no choice but to act. I do not know of any CAA proscecutions having taken place.

[llanfairpg]

The problems with interpretation of the law is it is just that. With no test cases to quote your are wholly left to the discretion of lawyers judges etc and we all know how they can disagree amongst themselves, that is one of the reasons we we have several levels of appeal in this country.

The reasons that instructional flying for ratings and licences must start and end at licensed airfield is because of the increased potential for accident, that is my deduction. However it would be my contention in any court that if the instructor was the sole handling pilot such a requirement although illegal could be overlooked in certain situations, again that is my opinion.

In regard to your ferry question any comment on here is purely speculative for the reasons given above. Take for instance a flight back to a licensed aerodrome where the fireman on duty goes sick and you land back illegally(you should have diverted of course) that is a much different scenario from when the intent before flight was to illegally conduct a training flight between two unlicensed airfields.

Much time of these forums is spent speculating about unenforceable laws. To put it in perspective it is still illegal in this country not to report to the lord of the manor for regular long bow training.

It is important to operate within the spirit of the law and apply common sense to why the law is in place.

I give you a classic example from many years ago when log books could be checked by the CAA while you waited.

Flt Lt Jones was ex RAF transport command(26 years) and had just been demobbed and had brought his log books to the CAA to have them checked for the issue of a CPL.

He waited a few hours and eventually the clerk came back and said. We have checked your log books and we can see no evidence of the required triangular cross country.

Ah but Jones said i have flown around the world 9 times.

Yes said the clerk but that is not a triangular cross country!

[BillieBob]

Some misconceptions here. Firstly, an AOC is not required for flight instruction, whether or not given within a club environment. An AOC is required only for public transport, not for aerial work.

Secondly, assuming that the flight is training or testing for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilots licence or the inclusion of an aircraft rating, a night rating or a night qualification in a licence, the aircraft may not take off or land anywhere other than at a licensed aerodrome or a government aerodrome.

If a positioning flight is required from an unlicensed to a licensed aerodrome, it can, in law, only be a private flight and no valuable consideration can be given in relation to it.

[Whopity]

From the ANO Schedule 8 Licence privileges:
(4) Subject to paragraph (5), he shall be entitled to fly as pilot in command of an aeroplane of a type or class specified in an instructor’s rating included in the licence on a flight for the purpose of aerial work which consists of:
(a) the giving of instruction in flying; or

(b) the conducting of flying tests for the purposes of this Order;

in either case in an aeroplane owned, or operated under arrangements entered into, by a flying club of which the person giving the instruction or conducting the test and the person receiving the instruction or undergoing the test are both members.

And Article 126
Aerodromes - public transport of passengers and instruction in flying
126 (1) An aircraft to which this paragraph applies shall not take off or land at a place in the United Kingdom other than:

(a) an aerodrome licensed under this Order for the take-off and landing of such aircraft; or

(b) a Government aerodrome notified as available for the take-off and landing of such aircraft, or in respect of which the person in charge of the aerodrome has given his permission for the particular aircraft to take off or land as the case may be; and in accordance with any conditions subject to which the aerodrome may have been licensed or notified, or subject to which such permission may have been given.

[unfazed]

Secondly, assuming that the flight is training or testing for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilots licence or the inclusion of an aircraft rating, a night rating or a night qualification in a licence, the aircraft may not take off or land anywhere other than at a licensed aerodrome or a government aerodrome.

But not an IMC rating because that is not an aircraft rating and is not ab initio training and is not specifically mentioned

Probably because the guy already has a PPL and the flight will normally be to a licensed airfield with a published instrument approach

[twelveoclockhigh]

recently in the local press re Monewden Airfield:

http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=News&itemid=IPED13%20Nov%202006%2020%3A37%3A32%3A940

I think they are/were positioning over to beccles (licensed) to begin lessons. I think there are other quite a few other places that offer similar - so the CAA can hardly pretend it's news to them.

[llanfairpg]

Some misconceptions here. Firstly, an AOC is not required for flight instruction, whether or not given within a club environment. An AOC is required only for public transport, not for aerial work.



Are you saying that all the freight carriers i have flown for then didnt need an AOC after all?

[BillieBob]

No, I am saying that an AOC is not required for flight instruction, as homeguard suggested. An AOC is required for public transport, which is when valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or cargo in an aircraft. Try reading the ANO a little more carefully - Article 157(3)(a) might be a good place to start.

[homeguard]

If we were to simply accept the extract from the ANO Schedule 8 that has been extracted, then we would need to assume that Instruction for a licence may only take place within a 'flying club' and even then when both are members of the same club.
The inference is, if the extract was the whole story, that it is not possible to give instruction for the gaining of a Pilots Licence/Rating except when given from one member to another within the environment of a 'club', do we really believe that?
If I do not want to be a 'clubby person' (sic) and an Instructor doesn't either, does it mean that no training for a licence can take place unless we swallow hard and grit our teeth and join up. Or, is there another way and if so what and then what regulations do we have to comply with to carry out the business?

[llanfairpg]

No, I am saying that an AOC is not required for flight instruction, as homeguard suggested. An AOC is required for public transport, which is when valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or cargo in an aircraft. Try reading the ANO a little more carefully - Article 157(3)(a) might be a good place to start.

Thank you, you are nearly correct but what a shame your attitude detracts from your knowledge.

But getting back to Aerial Work, it is my understanding that if you and the student are not members of a club and you take them flying for the purposes of letting the student handle the controls it is public transport and therefore you need an AOC, Ops manual etc. Wasnt there the case involving the two seat Spitfire 9?

I suppose if it came to the crunch you would have to prove that you and the student were a member of the same club that had been set up for the purpose of giving flying instruction. I wouldnt imagine that the bench would accept that if it was all done verbally and you met in the car park that it was a club. I would imagine to operate as a club you would have to have in place what one would expect a club to have, membership forms, a clubhose etc. I have always understood that is why passengers are joined into the club(even though it is a school). Lots of grey areas, i think!

Getting back to our friend who has read the ANO

No, I am saying that an AOC is not required for flight instruction, as homeguard suggested. An AOC is required for public transport, which is when valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or cargo in an aircraft. Try reading the ANO a little more carefully - Article 157(3)(a) might be a good place to start.

An AOC and Ops manual can be a requirement to give flight instruction(your phrase) and the case is on a airline where flight instruction is being given by a pilot authorised by the authority to give such flight instruction (that's me by the way and my title is training captain) Without either one of these documents being valid and approved (AOC & Ops Manual) i cannot legally give flight instruction to the candidate.

Try understanding the ANO a little more carefully. !!!!, now I am beginning to sound like you!

[unfazed]

Without either one of these documents being valid and approved (AOC & Ops Manual) i cannot legally give flight instruction to the candidate.

Try understanding the ANO a little more carefully. !!!!, now I am beginning to sound like you!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry but for PPL training you are recommended to have such documentation but it is only a recommendation. If you are teaching aircraft ratings or CPL and above then you are a FTO (as opposed to a Registered facility) and then the documents become mandatory (and you have to pay CAA a fee to assess your organisation and to police it).

[BillieBob]

There is a certain amount of thread creep here. The original question involved a PPL training flight from a temporarily unlicensed airfield. The correct answer to that question is that a PPL training flight must not take off or land anywhere other than a licensed or government airfield.

If transit from the unlicensed airfield to the licensed airfield is required before starting or after finishing the PPL training (or any other training or testing for a licence or aircraft rating) it must be conducted as a private flight, which means that no valuable consideration may be given for it. (i.e. the student may not legally be charged for the flight time in transit).

Then the creep started - homeguard suggested that ....if you are acting outside of an AOC you must be exploiting the exemption given to training within a clubLet's assume that we are still talking about training for a licence or aircraft rating. There is no requirement for an AOC to be held in order to conduct flight training, such a certificate is required only for public transport. There are plenty of organisations out there training for licences and aircraft ratings without holding an AOC. Similarly there are plenty of organisations providing training without being a 'club', the TRTOs for which I freelance, for example, or OAT, FTE and other major training organisations.

The goalposts then shifted even further when llanfairpg asked Are you saying that all the freight carriers i have flown for then didn't need an AOC after all?I have to say that I wasn't too sure which bit of the quote he was referring to but he seemed to suggest that carrying freight was not aerial work. In any event, the AOC in that case was clearly required for the public transport aspects of the flight, the fact that training was taking place being totally irrelevant (as Whopity has pointed out elsewhere). Of course, llanfairpg's example is even less relevant since whatever training he was providing on his public transport flights was obviously not training for the issue of a licence or aircraft rating.

llanfairpg went on to state ...it is my understanding that if you and the student are not members of a club and you take them flying for the purposes of letting the student handle the controls it is public transport and therefore you need an AOCIf this were true then every training flight conducted by OAT, FTE, etc., which are not 'clubs' and do not hold AOCs, would be illegal public transport - I think not!

To summarise -
Flights for the purpose of training or testing for the issue of a licence or aircraft rating may not take off or land other than at an airfield that is licensed for the purpose or is a government airfield.

An AOC is not required in order to provide training or testing for a licence or aircraft rating.

Training for a licence or aircraft rating does not have to take place within a 'club'.

The confusion in the latter case may be related to the the privileges of an FI who holds only a PPL. The privileges of a PPL do not include aerial work except for glider towing, para dropping or flight instruction and testing "in an aeroplane owned, or operated under arrangements entered into, by a flying club of which the person giving the instruction or conducting the test and the person receiving the instruction or undergoing the test are both members" Note that it is the qualification of the FI that requires the club environment, not the flight instruction.

[llanfairpg]

There is a certain amount of thread creep here. Thats probably because the original question has been answered.


Of course, llanfairpg's example is even less relevant since whatever training he was providing on his public transport flights was obviously not training for the issue of a licence or aircraft rating.

Ah but you see you said FLIGHT INSTRUCTION you didnt say training for the issue of a licence rating or aircraft rating, read your own post. Your still wrong anyway because i can still (and do) provide training for an aircraft rating, Eg A320,that is an aircraft rating, I am looking at mine in my licence now. This is where you can tie yourself up in knots if you do not really understand the legislation. Remember that most training captains in airlines have never ever completed a flying instructors rating. What you should have said is that where a new group Eg single engine to multi training is taking place only an FI with a valid multi engine instructional endorsement can carry this out. EG If you had an only SEP rating or a type rating on a single engine aircraft you could not be given a rating on a multi unless you were being trained by a FI with the multi engine training endorsement. However if you already had a multi rating or a twin engined aircraft type rating any authorised training captain can convert you onto say the Airbus even if you had only previously flown say a Seneca(we do it all the time) but I can not pop over to the airline over the road and do a rating for you. Why not, different AOC and ops manual, once I have been accepted by the CAA and read the new ops manual I then can do your type rating with the new company.

llanfairpg went on to state If this were true then every training flight conducted by OAT, FTE, etc., which are not 'clubs' and do not hold AOCs, would be illegal public transport - I think not!

This is what i actually said

But getting back to Aerial Work, it is my understanding that if you and the student are not members of a club and you take them flying for the purposes of letting the student handle the controls it is public transport and therefore you need an AOC, Ops manual etc. Wasnt there the case involving the two seat Spitfire 9?[/quote]

To summarise -


An AOC is not required in order to provide training or testing for a licence or aircraft rating. WRONG i cannot give you flight instruction for an A320 rating unless the company has a valid AOC and a CAA approved Ops Manual.

Training for a licence or aircraft rating does not have to take place within a 'club'.

The confusion in the latter case may be related to the the privileges of an FI who holds only a PPL. The privileges of a PPL do not include aerial work except for glider towing, para dropping or flight instruction and testing "in an aeroplane owned, or operated under arrangements entered into, by a flying club of which the person giving the instruction or conducting the test and the person receiving the instruction or undergoing the test are both members" Note that it is the qualification of the FI that requires the club environment, not the flight instruction.

You have got me confused here and i think i am also confusing you so perhaps the best thing to do is start again with a new thread. I will think of an example and see what everyone says

[unfazed]

Guys

The original thread asked - "Can the student log the transit part of the flight ?"

Any definitive answers on that ? My suspicion is that they can't but if they can that would be great

[Whopity]

I would have thought that would have been rather obvious. You are not a pilot, you are not training from a licensed aerodrome so what pray is there left to log other than a passenger flight?

[unfazed]

Whopity

I would have thought that would have been rather obvious

If we always applied logic to the rules of aviation as laid down by our betters that would be fantastic, unfortunately many of our whacky and nonsensical rules have no shred of logic, reason or common sense attached

OK So how about you are a student, you are flying with an instructor who is legally PIC and the flight is a private transit flight so you are not being charged (allegedly), the instructor has permitted you to fly the leg under his supervision and under his ppl license so why not log dual in your logbook ?

[Whopity]

because you have to log the place of embarkation Art 35 and if its not licensed, you will not be able to claim that flight for licence issue.

You can bet your life the student will log the entire flight time and put the intermediate licensed aerodrome as the point of embarkation and disembarkation. Nobody will ever notice unless they look at the Tech Log! Now if there is an accident, it will attract attention and an insurance company may well try to opt out of paying, by claiming that part of the flight was illegal!

[LowNSlow]

Obviously I can't speak for others but when I was learning to fly at Popham we flew to White Waltham to do a touch & go to start the lesson. After the lesson we landed and had a cuppa before flying back to Popham. Although I flew the transit legs I only booked the time between the touch & go and the landing at WW.

[unfazed]

Lownslow

Thanks for that feedback

I am doing that at the moment so will continue, it is a pity that the student cannot log time

[hugh flung_dung]

the rules of aviation as laid down by our betters
I suspect there may be an assumption in that statement that is not quite accurate.
HFD

[unfazed]

HFD

Absolutely correct ! I was being facetious

[FormationFlyer]

llanfairpg
Thanks. At least someone else understands this all the same way I do. I brought this same subject up some years ago - maybe 4 or so. Personally I would not instruct at one of these clubs since I researched it and come to the same answers as yourself.

Yes the CAA are currently pondering a proposal to allow instruction (other than microlight and other such categories which already have these 'privileges') from unlicenced aerodromes.

I didnt raise this issue about Popham but another airfield at the time. I am still at a loss to see how the CAA lets this go on - yet is quite happy to hammer us in every other way possible.

The answer I got at the time was the 'ferry flight' is FREE - the instructor is allowed the benefit in kind of the time - but possibly questions over tax liability for time on this flight if unpaid?..I dont know. If they claim the cost of the fuel/time etc is factored into the instrcution only flight then they have still charged you for the ferry and that requires an AOC.

I have NO IDEA how these organisations managed to get their RF status without the CAA checking that the a/d used was licenced - differences training etc etc perhaps - but surely when the first ab-initio application hit the CAA it should have sent the waves rolling out and the alarm bells ringing...apparrently not. Yet, in TrainingCom we get advice about why the CAA oft refuses night quals is because of incorrect logging of flights...If the student only logs the licenced A/D portion maybe the CAA didnt notice..but it still beggars belief.

Even if they only 'instruct' between licenced a/d the ferry flight is still illegal if the student pays at all. And any 'instructing' on the instructors log book would be a mis-declaration as they were not entitled to instruct on the ferry flight.

Its an absolute mire.

Personally I think that anyone thinking about flying with any organisation that offers training from an unlicenced airfield under the current rules should just simply walk away. If any thing goes wrong - god forbid - the insurance companies can start wriggling...and then it will hit the fan - imagine the newspaper headlines...FFS it would be a field-day.

[Classic]

Training for a licence or aircraft rating does not have to take place within a 'club'.
The confusion in the latter case may be related to the the privileges of an FI who holds only a PPL. The privileges of a PPL do not include aerial work except for glider towing, para dropping or flight instruction and testing "in an aeroplane owned, or operated under arrangements entered into, by a flying club of which the person giving the instruction or conducting the test and the person receiving the instruction or undergoing the test are both members" Note that it is the qualification of the FI that requires the club environment, not the flight instruction.
The 'Club' requirement doesn't only apply to just PPL holders with an FI rating, but also to CPL/ATPL holders. The ANO Schedule 8 includes the same proviso for all flying instruction, regardless of the licence held.
I assume that organisations such as OAT constitute the club as stated in the Schedule,(why shouldn't they?) and that the AOC and Ops Manual via the Training Manual separately give you authority to provide flying training in accordance with your TRI qualification.
If I'm not correct, then I too am confused:ugh: :confused:

[sir.pratt]

so taking off from and landing your cub/172 on a beach can't be counted? how about if during your flight from a licensed airfield, you do a couple of FLWOP into a farmers ag strip, doing a touch and go each time. can that be counted?

geez i'm glad i live down here :)

[FormationFlyer]

cant be counted? The flight would be illegal for training - both the beach and the farmers field unless the runways are licenced - I think there is possibly one licenced beach in the UK though that vaguely comes to mind...

I should make mention of the Touch and Go...as well - T&G ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. The flight must be started at and terminate at a licenced aerodrome. That means from one an a/c moves under its own power, to taxi, with the intention of flight until in next comes to rest. i.e. You must have a brakes-on to brakes-off flight - not a T&G.

You have to ask yourself these questions:

1. If my instructor is willing to break the rules to this degree what on earth is his motivation? Is he more worried about the number of hours in his logbook (with his eye on an airline job perhaps?) rather than worrying about my interests as a student?

2. If my instructor doesnt understand the rules - how much more doesnt he know? What quality of training am I receiving?

3. If my instructor is willing the break these rules - how many more is he willing to break? Is he even legal to fly? (talking to a number of FIEs about this who run instructor seminars the answer to this question is potentially quite frightening.)

[unfazed]

Well guys looks like the whole of the JAR world might be moving to a system that permits these dangerous lunatics to inflict flight training on poor un suspecting souls.

So what are you going to moan about then. I work from an unlicensed field and I have lost count of the number of students who tell me what an awful experience they have endured at licensed fieds in the area.

Just because you wear gold bars and polish your shoes doesn't make you safer !:}

Now that is bound to get a response !

[FormationFlyer]

hehehehe..Could I resist such a prod!? Of course not :)

Well guys looks like the whole of the JAR world might be moving to a system that permits these dangerous lunatics to inflict flight training on poor un suspecting souls.

Yep no problem with that when it happens. But as it is currently under consideration it is our responsibility as instructors and exmaniners to ensure that the laws as they are are complied with and to set an example to students. The rules matter. The laws matter.

I hasten to add that all my comments about unlicensed fields place 'goernment aerodromes' in the same category as licensed airfields for the purposes of this discussion.

Any instructor who blatently flies and instructs against these rules is a disgrace - it goes against everything that being an example of good aviation practice is about. :mad:

So what are you going to moan about then.

er...lack of gold bars on the instructors at said airfields ;) :p

I work from an unlicensed field and I have lost count of the number of students who tell me what an awful experience they have endured at licensed fieds in the area.
Just because you wear gold bars and polish your shoes doesn't make you safer !:}


Yeah much instructing can take place at unlicenced fields. Ive flown in an out of some unlicenced fields during some sorties. However, all of these are within the realms of the rules that have been laid down. The discussion here was quite clearly (from post #1) about training for the purposes of obtaining a licence.

er....so the status of an AERODROME licence is an indication of the quality of instruction that will be received?! Pardon? Did you really mean to suggest this? :uhoh:

Personally I think the quality of instruction in the UK is pretty poor at a lot of places and Ive heard never ending tales of bad instruction. The gold bar places can be just as good - or just as bad as anywhere else (ive experienced both - but gold bars at commercial levels). However, gold bars when treaching PPLs is just plain silly. I can think of one club I know of in the midlands where one or two instructors think gold bars are what its about. very sad. very silly. In fact laughable - if it wasnt for my concern about students at these sorts of establishments. But thats really creeping into another discussion.

I also work from an unlicenced airfield...the fact its a government aerodrome helps somewhat and tends to keep me within the law. :ok:

[unfazed]

Formation flyer

I'm glad that somebody responded !

Any others ?

[BillieBob]

The 'Club' requirement doesn't only apply to just PPL holders with an FI rating, but also to CPL/ATPL holders. The ANO Schedule 8 includes the same proviso for all flying instruction, regardless of the licence held.No, it doesn't. The only place that the 'flying club' proviso appears in Schedule 8 is under the privileges of a UK PPL (para 2(a)(i) and 2(a)(ii)). The same restriction does not even apply to the holder of a JAA PPL.

OAT is not a 'club' - it doesn't need to be since it does not employ instructors with a UK PPL. Back when PPL training was undertaken at OAT (and prior to JAR), they had a club, called the Oxford Flyers, which anyone undergoing PPL training, or hiring aircraft privately, was obliged to join.

[Classic]

No, it doesn't. The only place that the 'flying club' proviso appears in Schedule 8 is under the privileges of a UK PPL (para 2(a)(i) and 2(a)(ii)). The same restriction does not even apply to the holder of a JAA PPL.
OAT is not a 'club' - it doesn't need to be since it does not employ instructors with a UK PPL. Back when PPL training was undertaken at OAT (and prior to JAR), they had a club, called the Oxford Flyers, which anyone undergoing PPL training, or hiring aircraft privately, was obliged to join.
Well, look under the CPL section of Schedule 8, Para 3a and it states the same wording: "he shall be entitled to fly...for the purpose of aerial work which consists of the giving of instruction in flying..in an aircraft owned...by a flying club of which both the instructor and the person receiving instruction are both members".
The same applies to ATPL holders.

[BillieBob]

Well, look under the CPL section of Schedule 8, Para 3a and it states the same wording:OK, in Schedule 8 of the ANO 2005, under the UK CPL(A), paragraph 3(a) states "unless his licence includes an instrument rating (aeroplane), fly such an aeroplane on any scheduled journey;" and under the JAA CPL(A) the same paragraph reads "fly as pilot in command on a flight for the purpose of public transport unless he complies with the requirements of paragraph 1.960(a)(1) and (2) of Section 1 of JAR-OPS 1;"

What relevance does this have to licensed airfields?

[Classic]

OK, in Schedule 8 of the ANO 2005, under the UK CPL(A), paragraph 3(a) states "unless his licence includes an instrument rating (aeroplane), fly such an aeroplane on any scheduled journey;" and under the JAA CPL(A) the same paragraph reads "fly as pilot in command on a flight for the purpose of public transport unless he complies with the requirements of paragraph 1.960(a)(1) and (2) of Section 1 of JAR-OPS 1;"
What relevance does this have to licensed airfields?
Sorry, I meant para 4:rolleyes:

[Whopity]

(2) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (7), he shall be entitled to fly as pilot in command of an aeroplane of a type or class on which he is so qualified and which is specified in an aircraft rating included in the licence when the aeroplane is engaged on a flight for any purpose whatsoever.

This is the bit of Schedule 8 that allows Commercial licence holders to instruct outside a club.

[unfazed]

Don't you just love the ANO

Not only do you need to know how to fly it also helps if you are a barrister or high court Judge.

Rest assured it is possible to fly from an unlicensed airfield and safely conduct an ab initio training flight whilst staying within the laws of the land.:ok:

[FormationFlyer]

Rest assured it is possible to fly from an unlicensed airfield and safely conduct an ab initio training flight whilst staying within the laws of the land.:ok:

Perhaps some insight then as to how this is actually achieved perhaps? WRT ab-initio SEP not ML. :confused: I feel the need for some reassurance. :E

[BillieBob]

The para (4) bit in Schedule 8 is left over from the good old days before JAR when one needed a type rating for every aircraft one was going to fly for hire or reward. If, for example one held type ratings on the PA28 and PA34 one could instruct and test on those types wherever and whenever one liked. The instructor rating, on the other hand, would, for example, be endorsed for 'Group A and B' and one could instruct on any aircraft in those groups, for which one didn't hold a type rating, only within the 'flying club' restriction.

Since the advent of JAR and Class Ratings, the 'flying club' restriction is no longer relevant to FIs who hold professional licences, who can instruct within or without a flying club on any aeroplane for which they hold the relevant class (or type) rating.

[Classic]

Billiebob

I realise that's how it works in practice, but for the life of me I can't read the ANO and come to that same conclusion. Maybe I lack the lawyer's brain, but it seems to me that you can pick bits of the regulations and draw many different conclusions.

Is it written anywhere in plain(er) english, a la LASORS?

[BillieBob]

OK, let's try it this way - bear in mind we are talking about the situation pre-JAR

Paragraph (2) says that a CPL holder can "...as pilot in command of an aeroplane of a type or class on which he is so qualified and which is specified in an aircraft rating included in the licence when the aeroplane is engaged on a flight for any purpose whatsoever." Note the 'aircraft rating' bit.

Paragraph (4) says that a CPL holder"...shall be entitled to fly as pilot in command of an aeroplane of a type or class specified in an instructor’s rating included in the licence on a flight for the purpose of aerial work which consists of:

(a) the giving of instruction in flying; or

(b) the conducting of flying tests for the purposes of this Order;

in either case in an aeroplane owned, or operated under arrangements entered into, by a flying club of which the person giving the instruction or conducting the test and the person receiving the instruction or undergoing the test are both members. Note the 'instructor's rating' bit.

So, a pilot can fly as pilot in command of an aeroplane that is specified in an aircraft rating for any purpose whatsoever (including training and testing) but can fly an aircraft that is specified in an instructors rating (but not specified in an aircraft rating) for the purpose of aerial work (i.e. training or testing) only within the 'flying club' restriction.

Think about it this way - Before JAR you had professional privileges on any SEP or MEP aircraft for which you held a type rating but only private priveleges for other aircraft in the class for which you didn't hold a type rating. However, you could train or test on any SEP or MEP aircraft for which you didn't hold a type rating, but only with the 'flying club' restriction.

If the restrictions of para (4) applied, how could examiners do their job? they would have to join every 'club' of which their candidates were members. Consider this - last week, I got a call from a private owner who wanted to revalidate his IR on his own aeroplane - which 'club' do we both join to allow me to conduct the test? (btw, the aircraft is a Citation1)

I'm afraid I don't know how I can make it any clearer -

1. You don't need to be a member of a 'club' to give or receive flight instruction unless the instructor concerned holds only a PPL

2. Aircraft flying for the purpose of flight instruction (for a licence, aircraft rating or night qualification) may not land or take-off except at an aerodrome licensed for the purpose or at a government aerodrome

[Whopity]

1. You don't need to be a member of a 'club' to give or receive flight instruction unless the instructor concerned holds only a PPL
Or a BCPL(R)!