Non-instructor Trial flights

[BEagle]

See the ANO Section 1 Part XI:


valuable consideration which falls within paragraph (10)(b);
is a contribution to the direct costs of the flight otherwise payable by the pilot in command; and
(ii) (aa) no more than 4 persons (including the pilot) are carried on such a flight;
(bb) the proportion which such contribution bears to the total direct costs of the flight shall not exceed the proportion which the number of persons carried on the flight (excluding the pilot) bears to the number of persons carried on the flight (including the pilot);
(cc) no information concerning the flight shall have been published or advertised prior to the commencement of the flight other than, in the case of an aircraft operated by a flying club, advertising wholly within the premises of such a flying club in which case all the persons carried on such a flight who are aged 18 years or over shall be members of that
flying club; and

(dd) no person acting as a pilot on such a flight shall be employed as a pilot by or be a party to a contract for the provision of services as a pilot with the operator of the aircraft being flown on the flight.

There's a lot more, suggest you download CAP393 in .pdf format from the CAA website. If there are 4 of you including the pilot flying on a private flight, the passengers may cost share but between them must pay no more than 3/4 of the direct costs. So you can't get the 3 of them to pay 1/3 of the cost each, for example, with the pilot paying nothing. Para (dd) could perhaps be taken to apply to the non-FI/CRI PPL holder 'conducting' the 'check' in that he/she must be 'acting as a pilot' because he/she has been selected as such by the CFI in order to conduct the 'check'. It might therefore be construed that he is acting as a party to an implied contract for the provision of the service of a check pilot with the operator of the aircraft (the hirer) being flown on the flight.

But then again, it may not.

Far better to stay totally legal rather than sailing into muddy and unclear waters; if you use only authorised FIs for the purpose of any check ride - whether mandatory or voluntary - you will avoid any possible doubt.

Back to the thread, the illegal public transport activities of the club referred to in the original post must not be allowed to continue. You must make those involved realise this.