Originally Posted by
andrewr
The definition of flight training for the purposes of part 141 is probably important here. In general, what is considered flight training and required to be done under part 141? It is probably more specific than just "this feels like training."
If someone needs work in their AFR to meet the standard for forced landings, is that training or is it e.g. just reviewing knowledge and skills for which they have already received the training? Maybe training means working towards a qualification they don't currently have?
I'm pretty sure that answer would be straight forward. If the instructor was to provide instruction/coaching during the flight on how to conduct a sequence that is required for the AFR, they would be conducting training. This is opposed to asking the candidate to demonstrate a sequence that is required. In practice, if you are asked to demonstrate a glide approach, and no input is given to its conduct then you are acting as PIC, with the instructor merely watching. If the instructor has to demonstrate/coach, take over, or have any input in order for a satisfactory outcome of the glide approach then it becomes training. Now the glide approach could be satisfactory but with some flaws, the instructor could debrief the glide approach with critique on how it could be improved post sequence, that would not be flight training as such.
Who's "operator" when the activity is Fred's training? Does Fred remain "operator" and designate - either implicitly or ideally expressly - the instructor as PIC? Or, because it's training, does the Part 141 certificate holder automatically become "operator" of Fred's aircraft and designate the instructor PIC?
This is a very important question, because there is some significant implications as far as who is responsible should the aircraft or property be damaged or persons injured. The insurer and any law enforcement would want to know who was legally in charge when the situation occurred. The instructor/part 141 'operator' should have a contract to specify who is in command and when, regardless of what aircraft is being used. They should also specify a minimum insurance amount to cover participants in the event of mishap. I'm not up to speed with what happens today, but in the past all insurance was tied to the aircraft and operators building insurance when clients were on site, and the 'hire' agreement was quite specific as to who was going to pay the sizable excess should something happen. It would be well established as to what the purpose of the flight was for, ie training, test, AFR, solo, private hire etc, and that determined who was responsible. As I said earlier the AFR instructor would make it clear to the candidate who would be in command, and the circumstance that the flight would become training and therefore dual, then by signing the hire agreement the candidate was accepting of the conditions imposed on the flight.
Now being the owner of the aircraft does not automatically make you PIC, you can assign yourself as PIC just by thinking so before you go flying. If an instructor is employed to provide an AFR or any other operation involving your aircraft then both of you should be clear on who is PIC and I would suggest some form of contract be available and signed for the benefit of both parties. Unless you have a a lot of spare cash just sitting around and you are happy to spend it on other peoples concerns that is.
PS when I referred to 'hire agreements' it was also used for instructor only for owner aircraft purposes.
Going back to the original post, if the instructor was PIC he would be within his rights to ask for pre-flight checks to be conducted as he wished, including run-ups, because he is legally responsible should something happen on take-off and the run ups would have uncovered such a fault. If the candidate was PIC, then the instructor can ask the run-ups be done, if not complied with satisfactorily then they can either accept it and continue, state they wish to terminate the check and make it training or ask to be returned to the school and terminate the check. What happens next could be touchy as then it would come down to being a failed AFR and the candidate would not then be able to exercise the privileges of their licence, or part there of that was not completed.