They have booked and paid for an introduction to flight in a light aircraft. If they wanted an introduction to flying a light aircraft then they should have booked and paid for a Introductory Flying Lesson.
That is a very subtle distinction. To Joe Public, it's an introduction to handling the controls......if it were designated a
PLEASURE FLIGHT , J. P's expectations would be somewhat different........
I submit that to call it "an introduction to flying a light aircraft" is disengeious, bordering on deliberate deception....even adding "in" ,- as "introduction to flying
IN a light aircraft ", is still somewhat ambiguous.
Calling a "Pleasure- Flight" by another , deceptive , name is sharp practice.
When I went flying with my mate, I used to take the pump-chitty and settle the bill.....his protests fell on deaf ears and as we always necked it post-flight, there was little sanction he could apply.I can see potential for a lot of aggro and resentment between Cof A types and Permit holders, if, indeed, the rules are relaxed......the only justification for the ridiculous expense of C of A, is the artificial regulatory limitations on operating the Permit types....come Night and IFR priviledges, the value gap becomes a wide chasm. In view of the safety-record of Permit types, how is the regime of Cof A justified for GA?
Public hire seems just as risky, training is quite possible on a Permit type....
No wonder UK GA is bumping along on the bottom!- this whole thread pontificating on the mass of contradictory and ambiguous rules/laws and nothing clear-cut and definitive has yet emerged.
