Perhaps some would also argue that taking a blind student could not be a trial lesson because medically he would never hold a licence?
Exactly. Correct.
If you take a blind person for an enjoyable flight and they have a go and they thoroughly enjoy the experience then that is great. It is a big plus for aviation, and a thoroughly rewarding experience.
However, if you take money (or other valuable consideration) in order for the flight to take place i.e. you are not going to do the flight for free or on a cost share basis then it is 100% public transport because you are taking money for the flight and trying to justify that by incorrectly claiming that the blind person was a valid crewmember i.e. a student. They were not.
Just ask your insurance company if they cover blind students
I have come across several people who can never qualify as a student pilot eg disability, inability to hold medical etc etc but still want to experience the joy of flight. I either refer them to a suitable pilot who can give them that experience for free or on a cost share basis. I frequently do such flights for free and have more than one person who has lost their medical but still flies with me (cost share) to lunch or some other there and back outing which they thoroughly enjoy and I am quite happy to pay my share of the costs etc.
I don't think that I would feel comfortable charging a blind person for something that a numnber of people will do for free. In fact I would go as far as saying that I find it rather sad that people would think of charging such a person for something that that can not fully benefit from.
It is very surprising that not one of the people crying foul here realise that it is only because the person pays for the flight that there is any claim of public transport. Is this the instructor forum?
If for example Mad Jock takes a terminally ill person on a their last tour of the UK ( and also teaches them how to fly (or not - it makes no difference)
but does so for free or on a cost sharing basis then there is no problem because it is a 100% private flight. Not so if they charge for the flight.
---------
Are you really saying you think we should all stop doing "trial lessons" unless the customer is actually going to continue and attain a licence? Surely not.
There has to be some reasonable expectation that the prospective student "could" at some time in the future continue training. Just because they say that they have no interest does not mean that you can't do the flight - it is a sales flight and you may well give them such an excellent experience that they change their mind.
However, there are unfortunately some people who can never (through no fault of their own) get a licence or even go solo. in these cases there can never be even the remotest expectation of continuation of the training.
They can fly for free, cost share, etc etc and I would have to ask why for example a blind person would be expected to pay trial lesson rates to not get what they are paying for i.e. they are unable to experience a true flight lesson. Is there parts of the flight training / club flying population that see profit in blind people "learning to fly"?
This is the moral equivalent of a deaf person walking into a shop selling hi-fi equipment and the sales person working hard to convince them that they would be better off spending £500 on the super hi-fidelity surround sound system when what they really wanted was a simple £20 alarm-clock radio that will plug into their pillow vibrator.
Next thing we know there will be flying schools who also charge the guide dog a "day membership fee" while there are plenty of suitable PPLs in the "club" who could give the same experience - and more for free.