A friend and myself are thinking of buying a C152. I am about half way through my PPL and my friend has around 100 hours PPL. Does anyone know whether I could be instructed on my own aircraft, or does any instruction have to come under the auspice of a registered FTO? I It would be my intention to pay my instructor on a freelance basis.
I think that you would have to be named as the sole owner if it's on a private CofA.
Which basically means construct the paperwork so that it appears you own the aircraft and are allowing your friend to use it, rather than that you are joint owners. You can always adjust for honesty once you are licensed.
Any aircraft, whether on CofA or permit can be owned up to 20 ways.
However, unless it's on a public transport CofA (or a microlight with a type-approved permit), you need to be sole owner to be given initial instruction for a license or rating. If you are sole owner then it doesn't matter what sort of permit or CofA it's got.
Also remember that you need the aircraft based at a licensed airfield. So, if for-example you are a member of one of the many well run syndicates at Popham, you'd have to relocate to, say, Thruxton, do the instruction from there, then relocate the aircraft back home - even if it has got a public CofA.
N.B. There is a clause you can use, which is that the instructor must be doing it entirely freely and out of the goodness of their heart without receiving any payment whatsoever. I've yet to persuade any instructor to do this for me, but have seen it done - the pilot in question only pointed out after his logbook was signed that he couldn't legally pay for the instruction. I think you'll probably only get away with that approach once per instructor unless you know them extremely well.
I heard today that the CAA changed the rules concerning group ownership and training about 18 months ago and you are allowed to use a joint owned a/c for training purposes. I haven't got the details yet to support this but I'll post when I find out if there is any helpful truth.
Firstly, In order to stop all the confusion about aircraft C of A, place the aircraft on a Transport Category C of A. This should be a fairly easy process for a C152, providing that the engine has not reached its life. If you are going to leave the aircraft on a private C of A, there is an AIC on the subject, but i can not remember exactly what it says. Best to read it your self
Secondly, the instructor would need to be registered as a JAR training organisation and have agreement to operate under another organisation.
The training restriction only applies to "training for the initial issue of a licence or rating" - so the biennial flight with instructor or MEP, IMC and/or IR refreshers and renewals are okay on Private.
Isn't it the additional checks on Public that make the costs go up unless you fly enough hours that a 50 hour check falls due every 62 days (or whatever the time-limited checks are).
There are also restrictions on lifing of parts, sourcing of some non-critical bits, etc. So, in taking an aircraft that's been private for some time to public, you may find yourself replacing (at considerable expense) quite a lot of apparently perfectly serviceable aircraft parts.
Also a lot of minor tasks that on private could be signed for by the owner now can't, so the entire private-cat service history will need reviewing and any number of minor oddments may need inspecting, all obviously requiring expenditure on wages if nothing else.
Not really my area of Engineering, so by all means anybody better qualified correct me.
There is an awful lot of misinformation being put about on this topic, isn't there!
For instruction towards the grant of a licence or a rating, you need a Public Transport C of A unless you are the sole owner of the aircraft (in which case Private Cat will do, but with some stipulations about maintenance). You need a licenced airfield.
Unless the instructor is not paid for the instruction. Paying an exhorbitant groundschool fee to him in lieu of airborne instruction time might be misunderstood by the CAA.
Once you have a licence, the various "renewal" checkrides can be in a group-owned private cat aircraft.
It's all in the AIC. I wrote to the CAA for clarification for our group, so we aren't in any doubt. We all do our renewal flights (and type signoff) in the group aircraft, and hire club ones for the issue of ratings.
A and C, as Genghis says, putting your C152 on a Public C of A could be difficult. I did it with an Aerobat and all it cost me was the price of fitting a starter motor warning light plus a fee to the CAA. This was done during an Annual inspection to make it all easier. If you get an engineer to look at the logbooks and the aircraft (which is advisable before buying an aircraft anyway ) he should be abnle to assess what remedial work is necessary to make the change from Private to Public Cat.
To get around the instructor problem you could rent the aircraft to your local friendly flying school and then pay the instructor through them whilst using your own aircraft. In the agreement you make with the school you can then specify what do's and dont's will apply to the rental of the aircraft to others. You might even make some money out of it
Again, the world of aviation seems over complicated. I wonder why it is deemed "safe" for the renewal to be completed in an a/c in the Private category but NOT the initial issue?
Is the a/c subjected to different stresses and stains during initial issue?
Have I missed the point completely, quite possible!
What is the difference? It seems that exemption under certain circumstances leads to strange differences like the one above.
Is the real issue that of protection of professional livelihoods be that Engineer or Instructor (I can understand this as I am a CEng albeit in a different industry), because I cannot see a difference in any safety issues between an initial rating and a renewal when just focusing on the maintenance of the aircraft.
Please can someone explain this if I have missed the point.
Edited because I had consumed too much "Duff" and got it back-to-front.
Last edited by Barney_Gumble; 24th Apr 2003 at 04:08.
Barney - you're looking for logic for one particular set of parameters.
The CAA had to draw the line somewhere, to define what could and could not be used for training. (Their lawyers seem to have had quite a hand in that, based on the letter we got). The line is where it is because it has to be somewhere, and that's where the bloke in charge decided to put it.
You could make an equally valid case for a range of places to draw the line. It just isn't our call...