Instruction on permit aircraft

[pilgrim flyer]

Can anybody tell me the situation regarding instructing on permit aircraft such as the YAK 52TD?

It would be used for advanced training- high performance tail dragger, aeros, conversions - as well as trial lessons.

The CAA some time ago told me it was a no no, however there would seem to be some inconsistency - trial flights being done in Jet Provosts for instance, as well as illogically - aircraft designed for the purpose and potentially a lot safer than a Tiger moth.

Any considered and informed thoughts most welcome.

PF

[18greens]

Instruction can be given on any aircraft for conversion, recurrency training and the 1 hour with an instructor.

I think the difference is you need a c of a aircraft (and a licenced airfield) for the issue of ratings (PPL , IMC etc).

I'm not clear where a tailwheel or complex conversion comes into this.

I bet Beagle will be able to quote chapter and verse.

[funfly]

I have a permit aircraft registered in my name.
In addition to me, a qualified instructor is insured to fly it and has had conversion training.
My wife is training for her PPL.
Can the instructor give her any training in my permit aircraft - accepting that this time may not be counted towards her PPl and that he may not be paid for it?
The intention is that with 'type training' she would be in a better position should her skills be required e.g. if I were incapacitated.

[FlyingForFun]

My understanding (and again, BEagle would probably know better) is that instruction can only be given if the person receiving instruction is the sole owner of the aircraft.

Having said that, there are numerous groups around permit aircraft, and it seems to be generally accepted that instruction is given on these aircraft to the members of group, and despite it not being 100% legal, the CAA accept it because to not allow a group member to receive a checkout on their own aircraft would simply be madness. At least, that was the case when I used to be a member of group formed around a permit aircraft.

On the subject of Jet Provosts, my knowledge is based purely on my shady memory of a previous post on PPRuNe, but I seem to remember that the conclusion was that the instruction which was given on JPs broke just about all of the rules, but was done with approval from the CAA (not sure if it was written approval or just a general agreement to turn a blind eye) on the basis that flights in a JP are something for which there is a genuine demand, and there is no other way of satisfying this demand. I'm sure there must have been more to it than that, but my memory has faded a bit since it's a while since I last saw it discussed.

FFF
-----------------

[pilgrim flyer]

Thanks everybody. I'm keen to use the above for remuneration, which may put a different complexion on things. I've just trawled around and found the reply from the CAA which I received some time ago;

"In reference to your recent enquiry regarding flight instruction on the YAK
52, I must inform you that this aircraft type only qualifies for the issue
of a 'Permit to Fly'. As such, each aircraft granted a Permit to Fly is
individually investigated and issued with a set of flying conditions
pertinent to aircraft type and operating limitations."

OK, I could take that as a definate 'maybe...'

"The sole owner of a permit to fly aircraft can receive remunerated flying
instruction provided the permit does not preclude flying instruction.
Group owners of permit to fly aircraft cannot receive remunerated flying
instruction, but unremunerated flying instruction can be received and given
when using solely or group owned permit to fly aircraft, it is also
permissible for unremunerated flight testing for the purpose of qualifying
for the grant of a licence or rating in permit to fly aircraft."

So if I own it all or don't get paid then 'yes'.... or maybe not?

"It is not possible for the YAK 52 to qualify for a C of A in any category so
it remains unable for you to carry out instructional remuneration on this
aircraft type."

Mmm, that'll be a 'no' then...? How about if I lease it? Or form a 'club' with flights as a benefit of membership'?

Your thoughts and advice welcome.

PF

[Mark 1]

Most of the essential points have been stated already.

Type conversion, differences training, refresher training etc. can all be carried out un-remunerated or "expenses only" on group owned permit aircraft. The PFA coaching scheme is an example of this where the training is done by FIs or CRIs (SEP).

There seems to be little scope to use the aircraft to generate revenue other than display flying.

I gather previous attempts at commercial operation with a foreign CofA (Hungarian?) ran into difficulties. I'm sure the likes of Jeffries and Goode will know the ins and outs, but it doesn't look promising.

[ifitaintboeing]

Pilgrim Flyer,

Your Permit to Fly precludes the aircraft from being used for Public Transport or Aerial Work. Therefore it cannot be hired out in the manner you describe.

Basically, you can RECEIVE:

1) Ab-Initio Training (http://www.pfa.org.uk/Engineering%20pdfs/Operating%20an%20Aircraft%20ona%20PFA%20Permit/Operating%20an%20Aircraft%20ona%20PFA%20Permit/TL%202.09%20Learning%20to%20Fly%20in%20a%20Permit%20Aircraft .pdf)provided you are the sole owner of the aircraft by an instructor whom you can pay, but not the examiner.

2) Recurrent training such as any part-owner's Biennial Flight Review, Tailwheel conversion etc. provided this is un-remunerated.

There is a CAA maximum of 20 equal partners (ie. min 5% ownership).

You cannot as an instructor own an aircraft and offer it for lessons to the public as this would be aerial work. It cannot be used for trial lessons.

Whilst I assume it is on a CAA Permit to Fly, the same rules apply as PFA Permit to Fly. See the PFA website (http://www.pfa.org.uk/info_for_aircraft_builders_and_operators.asp). They have unfortunately put the documents under the Engineering Section>>"Operating An Aircraft on a PFA Permit">>"Operating on a Permit to Fly compared with a C of A (http://www.pfa.org.uk/Engineering%20pdfs/Operating%20an%20Aircraft%20ona%20PFA%20Permit/Operating%20an%20Aircraft%20ona%20PFA%20Permit/TL%202.10%20Permit%20to%20Fly%20Compared%20with%20a%20C%20of %20A.pdf)"


Hope this helps.

Regards,

ifitaint...

[flybymike]

This is all very baffling. This is slightly off topic but I have a share in a group owned Private C of A aircraft. A while ago, a member of the group who had not flown for some four months or so, but who was still perfectly current to fly solo, wished to carry out 3 circuits in order to be allowed to carry passengers ( 3 take offs and landings in previous 90 days rule) He asked whether I would accompany him as a check pilot since I am usually very current on the aircraft. Since I am not an instructor however, it occurred to me that I would be classed as a passenger and that the flight would therefore be illegal. He subsequently flew with an instructor therefore. Given that I believe that the instructor was paid on a private Cof A aircraft, was this flight legal? and is it not bizarre that pilots who are very current and familiar with a specific sometimes unusual aircraft type with whom most instructors would not be familiar, are prevented from assisting with advice and checks in circumstances such as those above or indeed when familiarising a new group member?

[mad_jock]

yes the flight was legal.

If you have problems with people staying current and as a general bum covering exercise.

have you thought about http://www.ontrackaviation.com/cri-se.htm

Means your group can be self sufficent away from the local flying school.

[flybymike]

Thanks for the link MJ. Interesting reading, and indeed any of our group members would meet the pre entry requirements. Although I had heard of the PFA coaching scheme before now, I had honestly never heard of the CRI SE Scheme before. If this applies to me after 23 years continuous flying in a group environment (and I like to think I keep fairly current with GA matters generally, read all the mags etc) I cant help wondering how widely known this scheme is within the flying group environment generally! At any rate it certainly seems to make more sense using this scheme than my one hour flight every two years with a pimply newly qualified FI who is completely unfamiliar with my aircraft type and with whom I spend an hour teaching him ( or her ) how to fly it before we unanimously declare to one another that we "have each passed!"

[foxmoth]

In addition to me, a qualified instructor is insured to fly it and has had conversion training.
My wife is training for her PPL.
Can the instructor give her any training in my permit aircraft - accepting that this time may not be counted towards her PPl and that he may not be paid for it?

I think you will find that "sole ownership" includes immediate family members (i.e. Wife, sons and daughters) so your wife could actually receive instruction that counts and the instructor can be paid.

[BillieBob]

I like to think I keep fairly current with GA matters generally, read all the mags etcBut not, presumably, the ANO, JAR-FCL 1 or LASORS.

[flybymike]

I am tempted to say I am a person, not an anorak....

[EGBKFLYER]

Good answer FBM:D but a valid point Billiebob. I know LASORS is already distilled from other publications but I still find all these little ins and outs confusing and difficult to access easily. There must be an opportunity for some web wizard to come up with a site that enables you to put in a straight question and get a straight (correct) answer. Wishful thinking though, given the fact that even the Belgrano crew don't know half the time!

[Dr Eckener]

So I guess you mean FI's are not only pimply, but also anoraks FBM. Glad you have such a high opinion of us all.

[flybymike]

Clearly, there must be some instructors out there who do not have pimples, and maybe even some who do not wear anoraks. I am seriously beginning to doubt however, whether there are any who appreciate that some of us who post on these forums hold down full time jobs outside aviation and who therefore do not have the time or inclination to tuck ourselves up in bed every night with a copy of the air navigation order, and who therefore cannot be expected to amass the level of knowledge rightly and properly acquired by instructors during the course of their work and who do not therefore expect to receive snide and mocking retorts to an innocent demonstration of incomplete knowledge, or indignant responses to light hearted remarks.
For the record however, I unreservedly offer my apologies to any instructors who might have taken offence by my remarks.

[3 Point]

You can't have it both ways FBM, you said

"my one hour flight every two years with a pimply newly qualified FI who is completely unfamiliar with my aircraft type and with whom I spend an hour teaching him ( or her ) how to fly it before we unanimously declare to one another that we "have each passed!"

If you don't like to fly with a newly qualified instructor go and find a more experienced one who can actually teach you something! There are lots of us out here.

You asked "is it not bizarre that pilots who are very current and familiar with a specific sometimes unusual aircraft type with whom most instructors would not be familiar, are prevented from assisting with advice and checks?" No, its not bizarre if that individual is not qualified (ie is not an FI or a CRI). You can, of course "assist with advice and checks" and pass on your experience but you can't do the required training flights or difference training without being a qualified instructor - seems reasonable to me!

One might say that its bizare that an experienced pilot such as yourself who feels he has something to offer has not bothered to go out and get qualified! If you are familiar with unusual aircraft types you should find that there is plenty of demand for your services!

Happy landings

3 point

[flybymike]

Thanks for the point 3 point, and of course I wasnt suggesting for one moment that I be permitted to conduct the LPC in lieu of an instructor since as you rightly say, I am not qualified to do so. I merely remarked that it would have been helpful for my colleague to have had a pilot familiar with the aircraft type come along with him even if only to give psychological support ( if not to assist with the flight and checks etc) rather than have him, (as he would have been perfectly entitled to do,) fly on his own after an extended lay off because "passengers" were not permitted.
As for becoming an instructor myself, No thanks, I have seen what you guys have to endure and I couldnt take the heat in that particular kitchen!

[idle stop]

Nobody seems to have spotted AIC 65/2003, which is the authority on training and testing in ex-military Permit aircraft. An Exemption from GAD will permit training and testing, remunerated, in certain circumstances. See also CAP632. AICs on AIS website, CAP 632 downlaodable form SRG website.

[3 Point]

FBM

We are creeping off the original thread but its a worthy subject in its own right. You are right, it would be very useful for your friend to have an experienced pilot with recent experience fly with him; there is nothing stopping him from doing so.

You can both fly together with you (the experienced pilot) as aircraft captain, you can let him fly, give him advice and so forth; he can then fly his three solo take offs and landings in confidence and then subsequently fly with passengers. If however he wants teaching he needs an instructor, if he wants teaching by an instructor who has relevant experience he needs to go out and find one.

The choices are clear; if he wants advice from an experienced pilot, fine; if he wants to fly with an instructor for some training or to meet some regulatory requiremnt, fine; or if he wants training by an instructor with relvant experience that's fine too. Three entirely sepatate situations, all perfectly within the rules; your friend, the customer, can choose which one meets his requirement.

Happy landings

3 Point

[nipper1]

If you think LASORS et al is hard, try and work out the regulations pertaining to goods vehicles etc. Even the Department of Transport lawyers and their counterparts at the Vehicle Inspectorate will openly admit that the regulations are so complex that they cannot give a definitive answer on some technical issues.

If the regulations are so complicated that they cannot be easily understood by the ‘man in the street’ they are, by definition, bad regulations.

The country has gone mad......(or at least to the dogs)

[flybymike]

Admittedly that is a possible solution 3P. The only drawback I can see is that if I am to be P1 for the "familiarisation" flight and I am therefore to be ultimately responsible for the safe control and especially safe landing of the aircraft, then I would require for my own peace of mind to sit in the left seat ( no instructional ambidextrous right hand seat experience!) which would mean the other pilot in the right seat would be just as uncomfortable for the same reason! This problem would not apply of course to aircraft fitted with dual throttles for use with the right hand, and (perversely) those aircraft I have seen with dual throttles all seem to be left hand operated!

[ifitaintboeing]

flybymike,

Might I suggest that you get some experience flying from the right hand seat with an instructor in the left?

Regards,

ifitaint...

[3 Point]

FBM,

It's odd that you would not be happy to fly as aircraft captain in the right seat with your friend flying the aeroplane in the left but you would be happy sitting in that seat as a passenger being flown by him as an out of date and out of practice pilot. He may be the captain in the latter case but it will still hurts if he gets it wrong!

If you're not comfortable to fly as captain in the right seat then that is a problem but, if that's the case you wouldn't be of much use going along to "help" your friend anyway. A "helper" in this situation (with a pilot who is out of practice) would, I suggest have to be ready and able to interceede including taking over control if nessecary.

Sounds like the best solution for your friend is to find an instructor who is familiar with the peculiarities of the aeroplane in question. What sort of aeroplane are we discussing ayway; how peciliar is it?

Happy landings

3 Point

[rhwheeler]

AIC 7/2004 (White) allows a joint owner to undertake flight tests and pilot licence renewal/revalidation flights. This is distinct from a group owner where the group is considered in the same way as a flying club in the eyes of the law.

[mad_jock]

Just go and do the CRI course :D

In the grand scope of thing 1100 quid is alot but you will learn heaps. proberly make you a better pilot. It doesn't take that long, a couple of weekends and you can proberly do it on your machine as well if you want.

You will be able to check people out with no legal problems.

Sign log books for the 1 hour.

When your in with another member of the group you can both log the time. them as dual you as PIC.

Most insurance includes Instructors so if someone needs a favour you don't have any of the hassels of getting names put on the insurance.

You of course will have to suffer the newbie FI but the rest of the group won't. But you will proberly find there attitude will change when they find out you are a CRI. But if 2 of you fancy it you can check each other.

You will proberly also find that the standards of the group as a whole improve due to the fact that strange ideas don't get injected by outside FI's on every check.

MJ

BTW don't expect anyone to teach you how to fly from the RHS its something your meant to pick up as you go along. You will find that instruments become less and less important to you. Its all done looking out of the window and engine noise.

[flybymike]

3P. It's not a particularly exotic or unusual type (Currently Cessna Turbo 206 and before that a turbo C335) and although virtually any CFI, or examiner etc would be perfectly comfortable in it, I have come acoss many younger instructors with very little complex turbo aircraft experience who seem quite apprehensive. At any rate my gripe is not in any event about the availabilty of suitable instructors of which there will be many , it is the "no flight with passengers" rule even where the passenger is a qualified pilot.

As regards the apparent dichotomy between my apparent happiness to sit in the right seat as passenger but not as P1, It is is easily explained. It is quite possible to imagine a scenario where a fellow group member was fairly "current" in the aircraft ( say 2 very recent take offs and landings associated with lengthy flights) but who was still not permitted to carry passengers because of no 3rd T/O and landing within the previous 90 days. All of my fellow group members are relatively experienced by PPL standards ( I think we all have at least 6 or 700 hours and one is an ATPL) and I would therefore be very happy to fly P2 with any current "solo" qualified group member even though he may not be "passenger" qualified simply because of an unhappy coincidence of dates for the "3rd" landing. Indeed I would probably be equally happy with no recent take offs and landings at all as long as he was still legally qualified for solo flight and was not grossly non current. ( I would have to decide my own criteria for that) However, If I am to volunteer to be officially P1 from the right hand seat for such flights and thus make the appropriate log book entries etc , then it means that if anything does go wrong on the flight it is "Moi" who carries the can, takes the flak, answers to the CAA, explains to the insurance co etc etc, all because I was doing a favour for a fellow group member, and I dont want to do all that from the right seat!

If it aint boeing, Must admit it has ever only occurred to me to get some right seat instruction whenever I have (briefly) contemplated an FI rating but maybe its not a bad idea in its own right anyway....

[flybymike]

MJ, I must admit you have set me thinking about this whole CRI qualification business and as you say, if two of us did it, we would all be independent from the FBO. I think I might well have a go at persuading one of the others to join me. As you say it should be very educational, very useful, and I dont even have to have all the aggro of unappreciative, uncooperative ungrateful unpunctual annoying students which you lot have to put up with!

[flybymike]

Looking out of the windows and engine noise...so thats the secret! I'm scuppered on the second with a constant speed prop...

Mj, one question , you say the CRI can sign off the log book entry, Does it still require an examiner for the CAA return form? ( cant remember the ref number of the form)

[mad_jock]

Yep you still need the paper work done by a CAA examiner unless of course you want to send the whole lot into the CAA and pay them to do it.

And as you now say that its a turbo aircraft I would be very suspect that many newbie FI's would be legal to fly it. And I am not suprised that the FI's are ****ting themselves while in it. What happens if they take control and kill the turbo? Who pays for it?

Turbo needs a sign off for differences training and I would be very suprised unless they flew a turbo seneca for IR training that many would have it. As such if they haven't got the signature in thier log book they can only be an educated pax. I wouldn't trust most (including myself) to handle the engine properly if they were forced to sort something out.

And also as well a turbo, constant speed prop, retractable might also come under the new regs for a complex types with manditory differences training. Your meant to get it for all twins now. So for the FI to teach on it they would need to be trained on it.

The more I think about your machine and situation the safe thing would be for all concerned (including your engine) if you or another group member did the training. Its not very fair on the school FI to be honest. Thier bum is well in the wind if anything go's wrong.

And you never know the school might appreciate a CRI to help out doing check flights/ one hour with an instructor at short notice unpayed. Or other groups might appreciate a stable known instructor who is local and won't disappear in 6 months.

But be careful you might get to like instructing and that could cost a fortune.

MJ

The looking out the window is the main trick most PPL's are to fixated to varying degrees on instruments, you only really develop really flying by attitude when you don't have any. It can really annoy students when you are looking out the side and say "check your altitude" or "check air speed" on approach. You just develop a much better appreciation of the picture of attitude of the different stages of flight be it in relation to the nose, wing tip or if you are really bored the main wheel of a cessna.

[3 Point]

FBM,

I think you are missing my point. If another pilot needs you to go along you should be capable of taking over and flying the aeroplane; if he doesn't he should go off solo, do three circuits then he can pick up passengers and get on with the flight.

It may be frustrating but there will always have to be a rule about who can and cant fly and there will therefore always be someone who is quite capable but not legal on paper. Think on this; just as there are many who are capable but not leagal there are also many who are legal but not capable! Relax the rule any further and you get more legal but incapable pilots and I don't want them in my airspace.

Happy landings

3 Point

[pilgrim flyer]

As you say it should be very educational, very useful, and I dont even have to have all the aggro of unappreciative, uncooperative ungrateful unpunctual annoying students which you lot have to put up with!

Ermm, where do you get that from FBM? I think that in mt 3 years in the job all my students have been appreciative, grateful, co-operative, not annoying and at least as punctual as their instructor...

Try it, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

PF

[flybymike]

PF you must work at the Utopia School of flying:)

MJ many thanks for the additional info. Once again I had no idea about the limitations on FI's instructing on Turbo aircraft. My experiences on LPC's with the instructor flying include amongst other things, almost setting fire to the engine due to incorrect start up procedures, failure to appreciate torque on take off and climb out from 300hp single, twice having to react to potential engine overboosts due to turbo lag on the climb out, one instructor who almost shook the airframe and engine to pieces by pulling back the prop control to almost fully coarse with the lock button instead of the vernier control, and the constant need to monitor engine temperatures in association with proper use of cowl flaps and correct leaning procedures. I dont hold any of these things against the instructors concerned since in a sense I was wary of them and watching for them.

3P, all accepted but just one final anomaly! Some pilots have restrictions on their medicals whch exclude them from carrying passengers except when another qualified pilot is on board. By definition, this recognises the ability of another pilot to intercede in the event of incapacitation of P1, but yet no such recognition exists for qualified pilots under the 90 day passenger rule, which ( not withstanding any personal reservations I may have about the legal implications of designating myself as P1 or my perception of my personal ability in the RHS) IMHO ought to be altered to allow recognition of qualified pilots as passengers under these circumstances too.

[pilgrim flyer]

FBM
PF you must work at the Utopia School of flying:)

Far from it. However the tone of your posts suggests that you're a fustrated wannabe FI. So what, I am wondering, is ther real reason that you are reluctant to get qualified and share your experience and wisdom with the wider flying community?

To get back to the question which I posed at the begining of this thread - what does one have to do in order to operate a permit aircraft in a way which one might recieve remuneration? Somebody must know.

A quick trawl round a few websites shows trial flights in JP's, Yaks, a Vampire, Hunters et al. So it is definately possible, but how?

PF

[ifitaintboeing]

A quick trawl round a few websites shows trial flights in JP's, Yaks, a Vampire, Hunters et al. So it is definately possible, but how?


Just because it's being done doesn't mean it's legal. Quite often these are done under the pretense that it is cost sharing. However, as I understand it, you are only allowed to cost share the variable costs (fuel, oil, landing fee, etc), not the fixed costs (insurance, hangarage, maintenance, etc.).

I've just looked at the Delta Jets (http://www.deltajets.com/index.php) website. It looks like they are selling you membership of a club.

Regards,

ifitaint...

[3 Point]

FBM,

I see what you are saying about pilots with restricted medicals but it's not the same at all; such a pilot would have to be qualified and current under the 90 day rule to act as pilot, the back up pilot is there simply to take over if the limited pilot becomes incapacitated.

With a pilot who is out of date, ie out of practice the "other" pilot needs to be able to interceede if the out of practice pilot mishandles the aeroplane.

An out of practice pilot needs to fly by himself to polish up his skills without causing any undue risk to passengers or to fly with someone who can supervise him and prevent any poor flying skills becoming dangerous, that is what CRIs, FIs, TRIs, Training Captains etc are for.

There are significant differences between these two situations.

Happy landings

3 Pt

[flybymike]

3P, I assumed that a pilot with a restricted medical would be compelled to fly with another pilot regardless of whether he was either within or without the 90 day recency requirement for carriage of passengers, but that he would simply not be able to carry non pilot passengers (as well) if outside the 90 day recency rule.
If my assumption is correct ( and perhaps it isnt?) then my point was that why can a pilot with no such medical restriction not carry another qualified pilot on board (other than an instructor or examiner) when still qualified to fly solo but not to carry ordinary passengers ?
Hope all that makes some sort of sense:confused:

[mad_jock]

flybymike i think the confusion is that I don't think you can get a restricted medical as you describe (I maybe wrong). You can either fly the plane by yourself or you can't be PIC. I don't know what the regs are for the NPPL.

The legalitys of the 90 day rule about who can sit in and who can't can be sorted with a paper work exercise. But the pilot sitting in the RHS and who is current has to log the time as PIC until the point the other person becomes current again.

If anything goes wrong its the person in the RHS who answers. And its not really the CAA you need to worry about its the insurance company.

This isn't just something that is stated in LASOR's its written into the ANO and has been for years.

Over 90 days you can't be PIC with anyone on board. Unless.....

You hold a CRI or FI rating on that class of aircraft and you obey all the regulations for giving flight instruction, then one other person can be counted as crew. ie you can't borrow your mates permit aircraft to taxi your mum down to visit your granny landing at an unlicensed strip. This is how instructors are allowed to start the night rating season without doing a night landing if they don't hold an SPA-IR.

There is nothing to stop you being PIC from the right hand seat and letting the other pilot do thier 3 circuits. You just have to be able to justify yourself to an insurance company afterwards. You could ask your insurance company, you might find that after submitting your experence and details. They might write it into your policy that your allowed to be PIC in the right hand seat and allow an out of check group member to do the 3 circuits. I know that for some groups with 28 day limits for insurance that certain group members are detailed as check pilots with no formal training and some have limitations on more than 90 days and others don't. But over 90days the check pilot must log it as PIC.

But to be honest it all becomes alot simpler after you have a FI or CRI rating.
Insurance is easy, and all the regulations are clear cut without having to use the loopholes.

So have you booked the course yet? :D

[3 Point]

FBM,

Yes, the pilot with the restricted medical would be compelled to fly with another qualified pilot but the point is that, if he was out of date by the 90 day rule he would be a passenger and the other guy would be the only pilot on board! As I said before, in your case the pilot with the unrestricted medical is there as a back up in case the guy with the restricted medical becomes medically incapacitated. Supervising and/or training a pilot who is out of recent flying practice is an entirely different situation requiring particular skills which are taught to instructors hence the requirement to fly with a CRI, FI etc.

Despite Mad Jock saying there is nothing to stop you from flying as P1 in the right seat and letting the other guy log three landings he is wrong if you are not an instructor! If you are not an instructor he can only be a passenger and, while he may fly the landings if you choose to let him they do not count as he in not part of the flight crew of the aeroplane. if two pilots fly together in a single pilot aeroplane only one of them can count the time unless the other is some sort of instructor and they are training or checking.

I do agree very much with what M J says regarding insurance; make sure you are covered. I would however add that I have not seen any requirement set out in a POH for the pilot in command to sit in one seat or the other so I think the insurance company would have a hard time wriggling out of it! They may do better by arguing that, as a non instructor you should not have been instructing and are therefore not covered.

I'm not sure that there is any more to say on this topic so I think I'll just leave it at that.

Happy landings (either by yourself or with your out of date friend) ;)

3 Point

[mad_jock]

I agree that only one person can be PIC of the aircraft. And if the other person is outside the 90 days it can't be them.

The regulations only state that you have to do 3 landings where you are sole manipulator of the controls. There is nothing that states what capacity you are acting as. You can log it as air experence with the PIC name in the PIC box with 3 landings sole manipulator in the remarks box none of the time goes towards your totals. With the PIC logging it as normal with your name and 3 landings etc in the remarks box.
(g) He shall not fly as pilot in command of such an aeroplane carrying passengers unless within the preceding 90 days he has made three take-offs and three landings as the sole manipulator of the controls of an aeroplane of the same type or class and if such a flight is to be carried out at night and his licence does not include an instrument rating (aeroplane) at least one of those take offs and landings shall have been at night.

And that is quoted from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20001562.htm

There is nothing stopping you; and I have done it myself at about 120 days, from jumping in a SEP and go flying yourself with nobody else onboard. I wasn't even in check afterwards because I only did 2 landings.

And I would certainly like to know the training I missed out on during my FIC I certainly didn't get any special training into how to stop someone killing me on approach. It was taken for granted I would take over when it got near my envelope after that is how low do you go before your arse twitches. The only requirement for the FI test is for you to demonstrate and patter an approach and land. And I suspect the CRI course with 3 hours in the air isn't going to do much on that either. I suspect but don't know it will proberly concentrate on pattering PFL's, stalls and steep turns there isn't much time to do anything else. So if the CAA reckons its ok after 3 hours in the RHS seat with 3 landings and no training for you to sort out landings. An hour of circuits in the right hand seat with a mate in the left will get your eye in.

I helped out with the 5 hours mutual for one bloke on a course. 3 hours of which we did on the normal pattering stuff followed by me taking the piss when he didn't give precise instructions and 2hrs I played the **** in the circuit.
He didn't like it at the time and give him his due was working bloody hard compared to what I did in my mutual. 1 year and 900 hours exerience of student cock ups in the space of 5 hours. 6 months down the line when I met him going for an airline interview he shook my hand and said thanks he had learned more about the real job of instructing in that 5hrs than all the rest of the hours. And if anyone from the CAA is reading this mutual is a waste of time and money for all concerned. Give them to a payed FI unrestricted for 5 hours not Joe Bloggs who is on the same course and doesn't have a clue about the job.

In fact fbm if you want some right hand experence with ex-instructors who WILL be ropy as hell in the LHS give me a PM and I am sure I can put you in contact with someone local who will be more than chuffed to go flying with you. Or I might even book some holiday and come and visit as long as your not teetotal.

MJ

edited to add what are these medicals with "need a safety pilot" i have never seen one or heard of one. Flown with a couple who are multi crew only. But never a CAA medical requires safety pilot. What is the use of that, in my instructing days that would have been serious " you fecking what?"
The amount of crips (And I use that word with permission of those people who are what ever the PC term is these days but they choose to ignore) and window lickers that can get a NPPL medical to fly solo on a car license. If your getting into need a safety pilot these days you are seriously knackard. And my training as a FI didn't and still dosn't to my knowledge train me to deal with that situation.

[Rivet gun]

OK, suppose I own a PFA permit aircraft. I am allowed to do training in this aircraft as sole owner. Presumably this would include FIC training, so I could do the training required for either CRI rating or to renew my (long lapsed) FI rating.

However in either case I would need a test with a FIE. Would doing the test in my own permit aircraft be a problem? If the FIE cannot be renumerated would any FIE do the test (expenses only)? Do some FIEs work for the airlines? presumably then they could not be renumerated anyway since it would then be aerial work and compromise their FTL limits. How much "expenses" can a instructor or examiner recieve before it becomes "renumeration"?

[flybymike]

OK guys, I give in! As 3P says, I think there is endless scope for talking around this subject in circles, and It seems that every new post introduces another spin off tangent which I am already resisting the urge to pick up and pursue, so I will bow out with many thanks for all contributions! Anyway, I'm feeling more than a little guilty about (unintentionally) hijacking the original thread question (Sorry PF)
MJ, Many thanks for all the info especially on the CRI stuff. I really enjoyed your last post. It was totally incomprehensible, highly amusing, and compulsive reading. Now I know why your Prefix Is "Mad":D Incidentally I'm currently talking to another group member about us both doing a Joint CRI course so it may not be long before it is indeed actually booked, and no I definitely aint teetotal, and so may well take you up on your offer!
Mike