Trial flights - are they legal?

[Fuji Abound]

On another thread there has been the usual discussion about when you can contribute towards or pay for a flight.

The point was made that the CAA has mounted a number of prosecutions against pilots without a CPL or CPL and AOC who have fallen outside the various exemptions (concessions).

Now I had always thought that trial flights were a bit close to the wind.

As we know nearly every flying schoold does them and the majority of flying schools dont have an AOC which is why I thought they dress them up as a trial lesson.

However, if you were to interview 100 people after their trial lesson (including the 70 year I recently saw hobbling out to the aircraft) whether they had any intention of learning to fly I suspect I know what the answer would be in the majority of cases.

So has the law changed, or is this still just a convenient way around the law. Do the CAA turn a blind eye?

.. .. .. and since the insurance companies were mentioned on the last thread, what would happen if there was an accident, and the relatives disclosed that the trial flighter had no intention what so ever of learning to fly but just wanted a spin around their mates house for their birthday .. .. ..

.. .. .. and is the matter even more complex when it is a trial aerobatic flight - I dont suppose there are many people who really wanted to learn to fly who would start out with a trial lesson in an Extra 300.

[snapper41]

trail or trial??

[Bahn-Jeaux]

Fuji, do you mean CPL only or CPL with FI rating.

Just for the record, I had a trial flight bought for a Chrissy prezzie a couple of years ago as my mother knew I had always wanted to fly.

Subsequently went on to obtain PPL but not with the school I took the trial flight with. How would that rate if your concerns were valid.

Would the school who sold the flight fall foul because I didn't learn with them ?

[High Wing Drifter]

If the flight begins and ends at the same aerodrome, stays within 25nm and the PiC has a CPL, what's the issue with trial flights? They are not PT, same as a pleasure/sigh seeing flight I would have thought. Lack of an FI rating would only mean that the PiC couldn't provide any instruction.

[OpenCirrus619]

My understanding if the customer is paying (as opposed to taking your mate for a flight) - though I have never bothered looking up the actual words - is summarised by:

If the punter is paying the entire cost of the flight the pilot needs a CPL
If the aircraft is AOC then it can be a "pleasure flight"
If the aircraft is not AOC is can only be done as a trial lesson "leading to the issue of a licence" and the pilot needs an FI rating in addition to a CPL


Usually either lesson 3 (Air Experience) or 4(i) (Effects of Controls) is given - depending on whether the customer wants to fly the aeroplane / is intending to start a PPL, or not.

If the aircraft is not under AOC and the pilot does not have a CPL and FI then the pilot must pay their share of the flight.

OC619

[S-Works]

Actually to do a trial flight you only need an FI not a CPL......

[DX Wombat]

Trial Lessons at HGFC are exactly that - a lesson. A full pre-flight briefing is given and the person having the lesson is told that they will be operating the controls to the extent that anyone having a first lesson would. The flight is always with a FI. I would have thought that removed any doubt about the nature of the flight.
As for me, my first (unofficial) lesson, with a FI who did it as a special treat for me, was in a Seneca. :) :) :) I later went on to learn at a completely different FTO as that one didn't have an aircraft suitable for me to learn in.

[Mad Girl]

Fuji Abound
.. .. .. and is the matter even more complex when it is a trial aerobatic flight - I dont suppose there are many people who really wanted to learn to fly who would start out with a trial lesson in an Extra 300.

I never wanted to learn to fly. It had never occurred to me....and then.....

How about a trial aerobatic flight in a Bulldog, followed by 3 more over the next 2 months.......???

I'm now at SOLO NAV stage :O

So it can.....AND DOES........happen, that some people come to flying in a round about (loopy!) way.

[IO540]

As I am sure most people on here know, trial lessons run very close to the line in most cases (most being obvious pleasure flights in reality) but the CAA is not going to do anything about them because to do so would destroy the PPL flight training business, most of which desperately needs the income from trial lessons.

The problem arises because, in the UK, almost any regular aerial work needs an AOC, but an AOC (which is a great moneyspinner for the CAA) is so expensive to get and to keep - of the order of £20,000 as a baseline - that the "trial lesson" exemption had to be created to enable PPL flight training to stay in business.

[S-Works]

Actually to do a trial flight you only need an FI not a CPL......
Are you identifying the distinction between the pilot and the operator being paid?

Well the pilot only needs and FI and the operator needs nothing but an RFTO.

[BEagle]

This has obviously come to the CAA's attention again recently:

TRAININGCOM 1/2007

4. CAP 755 RECREATIONAL AVIATION ACTIVITIES MANUAL

There is a long-standing safety concern that some flight instructors are conducting flights on the basis that they are flying training, when in substance they are public transport flights and ought to be conducted under an AOC. This concern is particularly focused on the practice of offering 'trial lessons'. There is, in law, no such concept as a trial lesson; rather, there is a first flying lesson, which may or may not be followed by subsequent lessons. Consequently there are a number of companies offering vouchers for 'trial lessons' and such vouchers may be given as presents however:

The recipient of the voucher may have no interest in learning to fly, but may wish to have the experience of being flown in a light aircraft.
From their point of view they will simply be a passenger being flown on a pleasure flight.
They may not appreciate that the flight is being conducted as a flying lesson and that accordingly it does not comply with the stringent requirements for a public transport flight.With industry, the CAA has introduced a common code to set minimum standards of operational control for recreational aviation activities. CAP 755 Recreational Aviation Activities Manual was published 2005 and is available on the CAA website at www.caa.co.uk/cap755 (http://www.caa.co.uk/cap755) . It provides the template for various types of activity and it can be used by individual operators as both guidance and a written proof of their compliance with the recommended standards and procedures.

[Fuji Abound]

Now come on chaps you know you are writing rubbish.

Whilst I would never contend that there are a few who started flying after having a trial lesson (in fact me included) there are an awful lot of people who want a pleasure flight (and good for them too).

There is a huge difference between some one who might take their PPL and some one with no intention of doing so what so ever.

In most cases if you ask them they will give you a perfectly honest answer - after all, why wouldn’t they?

If you take a friend flying most of us know full well you might well explain to them quite a bit about how the aircraft works and what the controls do. You will probably let them do some of the flying as well. Was that a trial lesson? Did your friend have any intention at that point in time of learning to fly? I don’t think so in the majority of cases, and in those few exceptions, your freind probably set at the outset, I wouldn’t mind learning to be a pilot.

In many other areas of law the courts are asked to look at the defendant’s intent. In other words did the defendant start out with the intention of following a particular course of action. By definition when Jo public pitches up at the flying school was his intention to have a lesson because he thought he might well like to do a PPL or did he want to go for a pleasure flight?

The flying schools might even treat the person as if they were a student in terms of a full briefing etc but in many many cases both parties know full well the intention of the person was not to learn to fly.

Its bending the law as much as someone giving another pilot a lift and the other pilot buying the first a gift voucher after the flight.

I suspect you know it, and I know it, but it is still sad to see such double standards.

[IO540]

Like I said, if the CAA played with this exemption, all hell would break loose.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Not this again................:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

What would be the benefit of not allowing the Ex.3, the air experience flight?

It would be impossible to police and if we had to vet every customer who came through the door. Flying schools would be closed within weeks.

The current system works fine, so what if the majority of people have no intention of continuing. That isn't the point. They are flying in aircraft maintained to the Public Transport Category and flown by qualified Flying Instructors. Why make an issue out of it?

How this can be seen as "dodgy" is beyond me. It isn't and it's just people being pedantic idiots that raise this up every so often.

The content of an "air experience flight" isn't defined and until it is the CAA can produce whatever they like in unreadable CAP's and messages from Trainingcom, but nobody is doing anything wrong as long as the a/c are suitable and the FI is qualified.

CAP755 mentions nothing of this and is probably the worst document I have read from the CAA. Like everything that comes from the belgrano recently, it is all advisory and quite frankly hopeless. Full of "shoulds" not "musts."

Another example is the advisory note about Single Power Lever Controls. Not law and nothing can be done if you ignore it. Not how they've written it though.

[Fuji Abound]

SAS

I agree with you totally.

The fact is I dont think the CAA does.

The fact is if some one went on a trial lesson, there was an accident (God forbid), and they told the Court they had no intention what so ever of learning to fly, but every intention of taking part in a pleasure flight I suspect they might have a really good case.

The whole reason I raised the issue is because the law and its interpretation is in a mess.

When a fellow pilot offers to take another pilot to collect his aircraft and meet the cost to me it would seem quite clear the intention is not to run a charter business but there are those very quick to point out it is illegal, whereas when a flying school offers trial lessons to members of the public which are commonly perceived to be pleasure flights the commercial community are very happy to claim it is all totally above board.

Is that double standards?

[Say again s l o w l y]

Most schools make very little from "trial lessons", but I can't agree with you Fuji that we in the industry are doing anything against the law.

A punter walks in and wants to fly. If you ask them wht they want to do and they say "I just want to take some aerial photos" and aren't interested in anything else, then that would be dodgy. He learnt nothing.

However, someone who has been bought a lesson for their birthday, turns up, is briefed and then is given every opportunity to "have a go" whilst having the aircraft explained to them. EVen if they don't ouch the controls once, they leave with more knowledge of aviation than they arrived with.

That is an air experience flight and as I mentioned, until the content of that flight is defined, then noone is breaking the rules unless they are obviously imitating an AOC flight.

A "pleasure flight" doesn't allow anyone to have a go on the controls or have any explanations of how it all works. Ex 3 whilst not having anything laid down, does tend to push the idea that some form of learning goes on.

[high-hopes]

......and what about the ones that give trial lessons with no CPL nor FI :)

What's it called ? ;)

[Fuji Abound]

With respect you are all missing the point, or, more probably I am making it badly.

A friend of mine was bought a trail lesson for his birthday a few years back. I know he had no intention what so ever of learning to fly. The people who bought him the lesson thought they were buying a pleasure flight. My friend thought he was getting a pleasure flight.

Did he and his friends think the flight would be conducted to the same standard as a commercial operation - who knows, but the CAA would tell them, if it were a pleasure flight, then most certainly it would have been.

The problem is that the regulations exist because the public are entitled to assume legislation is in place to protect them. Now, rightly or wrongly, the CAA obvioulsy believe a diffferent standard needs to be set for a pleasure flight and a trial lesson - that is why the law is written as it is.

On the other hand referring to the other thread on Prune consider how the circumstances differ. Two pilots agree to share a flight to enable the first to collect his aircraft. That is the sole purpose of the flight. The first pilot kindly agrees to give up his time, and the second pilot agrees to pay the cost. Now both pilots are qualified, they understand all about the risks involved in flying light aircraft and are taking a fully informed decision between two consenting and informed adults. On the other hand Jo public who turns up for a pleasure flight masquerading as a trail lesson knows nothing of the risks involved and assumes the CAA is there to protect him. They are neither informed nor perhaps are they consenting to the service they think is being provided.

That is why I think the law is daft!

[foxmoth]

The people who bought him the lesson thought they were buying a pleasure flight.
If that is the case then the school that sold him the TL is guilty of misselling and if that is how it was sold then the flight was illegal, if however they were told it was a trial lesson I do not see how they could have thought it anything else and as long as it was then operated in that way there should be no problem. This seems to be more a case of how it was sold than how it was operated - and as far as the public being concerned about the standards - how many do you think even realise what standards should be applied?:hmm:

[kms901]

And I thought that flying schools made their money out of selling "trial lesson" vouchers with a limited lifespan that were never used !

[Dr Jekyll]

Could the CAA be persuaded to create a category of 'air experience flight'? I'm thinking of something that would not require an AOC, could even be carried out on a permit to fly, but that would require the pilot to have a specified level of qualification and the customer to sign something saying 'I appreciate that this is not as safe as a commercial 747' or words to that effect. Additional stipulations could be flight duration, number of passengers (maybe one), and destination to be the same as departure airfield.

Perhaps not as a replacement for the trial lesson, but at least to replace the convoluted 'membership schemes' used by jet provost operators and the like.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Why do we want more regulation?
People are aware of the fact that flying is slightly riskier than sitting in their living room watching "Trisha" so let's not go even further down the "nanny state" route.

We don't have thousands of deaths every year because of a lack of regulation, so why change it and make life more difficult for those scratching a living from flying.

[bjornhall]

Is this actually a problem?

How many students/"passengers" are killed or injured in accidents during trial lessons?

Is the safety standard during flight training really that much lower than it is when you book a pleasure flight at an organisation with an AOC?

If it's not a safety problem, and not quite a legal problem either, then why bother...

[slim_slag]

There are quite a few regulations based upon things not actually being a problem. The FAA, an eminently more sensible and pragmatic bunch, allow non-stop sightseeing flights within a 25nm radius of the departure airfield by these dangerous flying school outfits. The CAA could simply include the (probably) no more than 50 relevant words found in part 119 into the UK regs, and these threads would die away.

Well, that last bit isn't actually true...

[IO540]

These CAA rules are designed basically for one purpose: to prevent private pilots competing with AOC holders.

Most relevant (in this context which is low-end piston charter work) AOC holders are in fact the bigger flying schools. These are the people who create the biggest stink imaginable, and go straight to the CAA, if some private pilot is seen to be carrying what looks like too many passengers too often...

So, it's a bit ironic that it is the flying schools who probably believe they benefit most from the tight AOC-protectionist climate, yet they stand to lose the most if this situation was tightened.

I would be astonished if the CAA really truly wanted to dig around with this particular hot potato. They will prepare various bland documents for due diligence reasons and then go back to frying the bigger fish (like some Thai airline with a 747 whose engine is about to drop off).

[FlyingForFun]

A few years ago, Mrs FFF bought me a day out driving very fast cars (including a Ferrari, and some single-seater racing car the name of which escapes me) around Thruxton as a birthday present.

I have absolutely no interest in becoming a racing driver. However, I understood that I was going to receive lessons in how to drive a racing car. I understood that I would be expected to do the driving (after demonstrations from the professionals). I tried to learn as much as I could in a short space of time, in order that my day out would not only be fun, but constructive. I had a great time! I'd do it again, if someone paid for me to do it again. But even after the experience, I have no intention of becoming a racing driver.

The similarities between this, and trial flying lessons, should be fairly obvious.

Every single trial lesson I ever had the pleasure of instructing was given a full brief, and allowed to do as much of the flying as possible. In some cases, severe disabilities, age, or other factors prevented the student from taking as much control as most. In other cases, the student told me that they'd rather not handle the controls (although quite a few of these changed their minds by the end of the flight - and all of them were given a briefing on how to use the controls before the flight, whether they expressed an interest in handling the aircraft or not). These flights are not pleasure flights. Any students who may have turned up at the flying school believing they were to have a pleasure flight due to mis-selling (I don't know of any such students, but it's always possible) certainly wouldn't have got into the aircraft without this misconception having been dispelled by the breifing.

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

[Gertrude the Wombat]

It was the other way round for me.

I went to the school and said I wanted to learn to fly. They said OK, we'll start by booking you a trial lesson. I said no need for that, I know I want to learn to fly. But they insisted.

Checking my log book, first flight is logged as "trial lesson", next as ex. 4 & 5.

(OK, so the reason I knew that I wanted to learn to fly was that it was something I'd been after for years, and I'd already had a "joy ride" with a different organisation.)

[Whirlybird]

I can't find the relevant book to quote (well, it's late), but so far as I remember Exercise 3 is a "trial lesson/air experience flight". It is the first lesson of the PPL course, whether you like it or not, Gertrude. The idea is to give the student an idea of what flying is all about before concentrating on more formal training; other than that the content is not specifically stated. As with driving, motor racing, horse riding, dancing, or tiddlywinks, you can have a first lesson with or without an intention to continue. Some people like dabbling their toes in the water in any field of endeavour; since when has that been unacceptable?

Flying schools give trial lessons/air experience flights. Vouchers which are sold state clearly that this is what they are. It's not the flying school's fault if an individual misunderstands that. I always ask trial lesson students if they want to take control, and occasionally some are too nervous and refuse. So what? They're still learning.

This is a non-topic, always has been and always will be. The fact that some people/organisations possibly break the rules means nothing other than that there will always be people who break rules.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

It is the first lesson of the PPL course, whether you like it or not, Gertrude.
Yes yes, it's just that the technical terminology, with which at a first lesson I was obviously unfamiliar, was not relevant to my situation when regarded as plain English.

[Say again s l o w l y]

I have found that trying to teach exercises on the first flight is a waste of time. It goes in one ear and straight out the other.

For the first flight with any student of any level. I am spending my time assessing them, rather than teaching new stuff. You need time to build up a rapport and to understand where they are and to plan the how to continue in the best manner.

"Trial lessons" or an air experience flight with a confirmed student are as important for me as they are for the student, so don't jump down the FI's throat and if they are any good, it certainly isn't a "joyride" even if it seems so.

People seem to forget that the job of an Instructor is a lot more complex than just pattering out stock phrases. Well if they are any good.

[DFC]

Just to add to what Bose has correctly pointed out. A PPL can provide a trial lesson provided that hold a valid instructor rating. In the case of SEP aircraft, there would have to be an RTF established to provide the aircraft, training etc but that RTF could be a sole trader or LLP or Ltd with only the very same PPL as benificary!

Yes there is no doubt that in the 95 to 98% of cases these are quite simply public transport sight seeing flights. No one including the CAA doubts that.

The problem is that having investigated the situation at length, it is all but impossible to prossicute anyone who correctly does trial lessons and has the required aircraft, instructor(s) and RTF or Club etc.

However, in order to prossicute, as some on here have quite rightly pointed out there must be some form of intent or recklessness.

That is where it all falls down.

Unlike what others have said about the intent of the customer - that is in fact not an issue. How can one prossicute a person or organisation simply because the customer could not read or was an idiot.

To bring a case, it would have to be proven that there was no intention on the part of the person or organisation to continue to provide training if at the end of the flight the customer asked to continue with further lessons.

There are some organisations who provide aerobatic trial flights and trials in classic aircraft. If after a customer falls out of the aircraft and hands over the half full bag, they ask if they can book the rest of the PPL course, the answer is no because ........ Then you have clear unashamed public transport.

Same goes for people who are obvously unable to complete the course.

Regards,

DFC

[Say again s l o w l y]

Where do you get such a baseless figure such as 95-98%? If that isn't a shot in the dark, then I don't know what is.

Show me where intent of a customer makes any difference in law in this case. It doesn't.

If an RTF has correct a/c, licensed pilots etc.etc. and brief the student and at least try to teach them something, then that is the end of it. There is nothing to prosecute and it would be a very daft person that authorised a witch hunt on what is seen as "normal practice" throughout the industry.

That would be a waste of time, effort and money and all it would do is to destroy any trust in the regulatory bodies.

They may not like it, but attacking clubs and schools would be an idiotic decision and one where whoever signed it off, would end up looking for a new job after they got booted up and down the law courts and cost the authorities a lot of money.

[Whirlybird]

Yes there is no doubt that in the 95 to 98% of cases these are quite simply public transport sight seeing flights. No one including the CAA doubts that.


Oh, really?!? :confused: I've been instructing for over four years, and I don't just doubt it, I KNOW you're wrong. I do a lot of trial lessons as one-offs. But in nearly all of them....90-95% as a rough estimate, the new student tries the controls, improves over time, and comes back down to earth with an ear to ear grin....and then asks for details of the course and/or bemoans the fact that they can't afford it. If that's not a trial lesson/air experience flight in everyone's meaning of the word including the CAA's, then I need to go back to school and re-learn the English language!

Since when, EVER, does one lesson presuppose that you'll do more? I went for a trial aerobatic lesson once. I had no intention of continuing; I wanted to see what it was like, and DO as much as possible in the time allowed. I want to do the same thing with motor racing, since I recently met an instructor; but I don't plan to take it up.

I don't get this! If I go to the local salsa class, and decide after one class it's not for me, no-one says it wasn't a lesson. If I try to ride a horse, fall off, and give up, no-one says the riding school was giving pleasure rides not lessons. If I think golf is too expensive from the start, but fancy a taster lesson with a pro, no-one says it's not a lesson because I'm not set on being world champion. Why is flying any different?

If we WERE giving pleasure flights, I'd hang on to the controls myself, thank you very much. It's only because we're giving trial lessons that I run into the situation I did the other week, where someone twice my size panicked, let go of the controls, and grabbed me!!!!!!!!!!! I may have made a mistake in not recognising how nervous she was, but are you going to tell me that wasn't a lesson (for both of us)?

Any half-decent instructor is going to really, really object to the tone of some of these posts. We don't like being effectively called liars and cheats, because we're not. :mad::mad::mad: And yes, I AM taking this personally, on behalf of all the good instructors and flying schools around...and there are many.

[bookworm]

If I go to the local salsa class, and decide after one class it's not for me, no-one says it wasn't a lesson.

But did you just go to admire the view? ;)

[Fuji Abound]

“I want to book a flight for my friend”.

“Well sir, we can either sell you a trail lesson, or a pleasure flight”.

“What’s the difference?”

“Well if you are thinking about doing a PPL you should book a trail lesson. The instructor will take you through some of the rudimentary aspects of handling the aircraft and you will receive a “technical” briefing, both before and after the flight. The full course will cost you around £7,000 and take about 50 hours if you decide to continue with the course.

If, on the other hand, you would like to do some local sight seeing, fly over your house and perhaps, if you wish, handle the controls for a short while, you should book a pleasure flight.”

“So is one less or more safe than the other”.

“Well, the CAA would tell you the pleasure flight is inherently safer. For our pleasure flights it is possible your pilot will be a great deal more experienced becasue the CAA sets higher standards for pilots engaged in pleasure flights and we will have to comply with a whole bunch of additional procedures which the CAA would say were designed to make the flight safer.”

That seems to me to be a reasonably frank and honest exchange between flying school and punter. I wonder which product they would go for?

[Say again s l o w l y]

Fuji, on a "pleasure flight" there would be no opportunity to "handle the controls".

That is the fundamental misunderstanding that you seem to have.

A pleasure flight is one where you get in the a/c as if you were getting into an airliner. The pilot isn't necessarily an FI, though would need to be a BCPL or CPL,

In an air experience flight, the PIC needs to be an FI, though not necessarily hold a professional licence.

Pleasure fights and air experience flights are very different things and as whirly says, trying to make out that the majority of FI's and schools are operating illegally is simply not true and is very insulting.

[Union Jack]

Interesting to note that Fuji is still "hot on the trail"!:bored:

Jack

[Fuji Abound]

Pleasure fights and air experience flights are very different things and as whirly says, trying to make out that the majority of FI's and schools are operating illegally is simply not true and is very insulting.

Hmmm, you seem to have got totally the wrong end of the stick. As usual anyone involved in this area is extremely defensive about an arrangement that it does not suite them to change. If you are entirely happy with the current arrangement as would seem to be the case by the way you defend it then I respect your views.

Frankly, I couldn’t be bothered one bit if it is changed or not or the CAA looks at the current arrangements in more depth or not.

The thread was actually provoked because I thought there was a lack of clarity in some of the arrangements concerning when a flight should be conducted by an AOC holder, a private pilot or someone else for that matter. I don’t think the law is clear and it would seem nor does the CAA given the number of statements they have issued presumably intended to carnify the law.

I also think there is a suggestion the CAA are very quick to prosecute a PPL if they become involved in anything at all that might suggest a commercial activity and yet they are happy to turn a blind eye to the whole issue of trail lessons. (trail as I know my typing makes you happy :))

Personally I think it would be in everyone’s interest to look at the law again unless I am completely wrong and it is crystal clear. In that respect I don’t only mean in so far as trail lessons are concerned but in general where lines should be drawn as to what amounts to a commercial activity.

I mentioned at the outset the qualified pilots who wants a lift to collect his aircraft but if he pays another pilot the cost of giving him a lift then he might be breaking the law.

Instructors often don’t see how their company deals with "selling" their products. I just 'phoned a local flying school and said I wanted to book a half hour pleasure flight for a friend. They told me they didn’t do pleasure flights but they could do a gift voucher for a trail lesson. I said my friend didn’t want to learn to fly but would enjoy a flight over his house and back. They told me that wasn’t a problem, book the trial lesson and my friend would get to sit in the front of the aircraft and could just tell the pilot where he wanted to go. Other flying schools might well handle that conversation differently - I have no idea, only you will know how your receptionists would deal with it. What would I have got - a trail lesson which I made clear I didn’t want, an air experience flight, or a PTF - I don’t know you tell me? When the “instructor” was handed over his “student” did the instructor know how the conversation had gone, and what did he think he was providing? Perhaps he would have kicked off introducing himself to my friend with “ah good, I hear you want to learn to fly, well I am your instructor for your first flight”.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Why are you trying to trip up businesses? The whole basis for your argument is one of semantics.

If someone turns up and the purpose of the flight is not to learn something about flying, but an excuse to do some aerial photography on the cheap, then there is little a school can do about it unless this has been made clear to them.

A couple of times I have had students who haven't been interested in having a go or flying the a/c, but I have given them every opportunity to do so and briefed them on the flight.

They spent the whole time taking photo's, does that mean I've broken the "law". No for numerous reasons, but the overriding one being that as the contents of an air experience flight aren't laid down, then how can you do something contrary to them?

From my point of view I fulfilled my obligation by giving the student the opportunity to learn. I cannot force someone into doing something. If all they want to do is take piccies, then so be it. They are getting an "aerial experience" whether they are touching the controls or not.

[Fuji Abound]

Why are you trying to trip up businesses? The whole basis for your argument is one of semantics.

Say Again

Forgive me but you really do seem to have got the wrong end of the stick, or dont want to read my posts.

Surely the whole point of a debate is to address the facts honestly. It is not a question of wanting to trip up businesses, it is simply that I thought I had a reasonable idea how trial lessons are sold by SOME flying schools. I thought I was right, and whilst it is only one example, I wanted to check. I dont think my conversation was leading in any way, and I dont suppose it was any different from many the school might have each year. By all means tell me I am wrong.

At least do me the courtesy of considering how your or other flying schools would deal with the sort of 'phone call I have outlined.

.. .. .. and dont worry I am not about to give the name of the Flying school concerened!

Is it about semantics? Yes I guess, but I personally think as I have said before there is a lot of confusion about when a flight is AOC work, when it is instructing, and when it is something else. (see the other thread running at the moment).

.. .. .. and I think rather than saying that is the way we have been doing it for years, and it is OK because we are only slightly mis selling what we do or however you want to dress it up, surely it would be far better if we all said to the CAA actually the law needs an overhaul, it isnt as clear as it should be, and it is in everyone's interest to get it sorted out!

[Whirlybird]

When the “instructor” was handed over his “student” did the instructor know how the conversation had gone, and what did he think he was providing? Perhaps he would have kicked off introducing himself to my friend with “ah good, I hear you want to learn to fly, well I am your instructor for your first flight”.

IMHO, that would be a lousy way to introduce oneself to any trial lesson student anyway. :{

Instructors aren't generally taught how to conduct trial lessons, and I think they should be. I wrote an article on this; if you go to the FTN website and click on "Instructor Notes" you should be able to read it for free if you want.

When presented with a TL student, I say something like: "Hi, I'm Whirly, and I'm an instructor here. You've got what we call a trial lesson or air experience flight booked with me. Did you want to actually have a go at flying the helicopter?"

The answer then will be: "Yes, definitely", "Can I?", "I'm not sure", or "Oh no, I just wanted to look at the view". If it's either of the last two, I say something like, "That's fine, but since this may be the only chance you ever get to be in a helicopter, why don't you have a go on the controls too? That's what you've paid for, and it's all dual controls, so you're quite safe. If you don't like it I can take over. But why not give it a go so you can tell everyone you've flown a helicopter!"

Most people take me up on that. Some say they'll see when we're up there, and that's fine. In either of those instances they get a briefing (a brief one!) on how the controls work. If they say "no, not never, no way" or similar, I say OK, and just take them flying. I then offer them the chance of a go on the controls when in the air, and probably 75% of those take it up anyway! And the others? They get an Air Experience Flight, which is what Exercise 3 is....no matter what they expected when they arrived. They get told a bit about helicopters anyway, but in a non-threatening and non-technical way. they come down having lerned something.

Now what on earth is wrong with all that? It's entirely in the spirit of what Ex 3 is supposed to be....incidentally, as far as I remember it's actually called an Air Experience Flight, not a Trial lesson, which ought to save all this arguing (and Fuji's spelling! :)).

[POBJOY]

Its just the same old story with a new cover.
Where does club flying stop,and Public Transport start.
I would suggest in practice there is very little difference between a pleasure flight,and a club trial flight.
I would also suggest the public transport issue is to give the public some extra protection for air taxi / airline operation, rather than a local hop.
For an A to A trip in your local area a club machine flown by a qualified instructor is no less safe than an aoc operation.
It could also be argued that a fi will be far more in tune with regular "engine failure" practice due to the fact he is teaching it on a daily basis.
The CAA should allow flying clubs to operate local A to A flights without all this nonsense about it having to be a lesson.
Having said that it would also be prudent to ensure the aircraft are operating within the flight manual limits,and that is the big difference between club,and AOC work.
There are several airfields that would be limited by distance/slope/surface,and may not comply with a requirement for a safe margin for operating with a passenger load.
Before the "AOC" was invented flying clubs used to make you a temporary member so you could fly with them, i then seem to remember a rule came out stating you had to be a member for a certain time before you could fly,and this put paid to the club bonus of pleasure flights after air shows.(apart from those who predated the applications and paid by cash).
I am afraid with this "Legal World" we are now in, the true state of the law would only be tested in court, so it is a case of clubs/pilots beware if you are faced with action as result of an incident.
In fact the whole of the Club issue (not just flying) has the same problem,as risk assessment,and duty of care become common terms, together with "responsble person" ,and "accountability".
The short answer is to decide whether you can justify the situation to yourself if faced with the unclear options avaiable.
PC

[mm_flynn]

I don't think Fuji is unclear about the realities of pleasure flight vs. trial (a.k.a. trail ;) ) lesson. The point is more a debate on the sensibility of the law. Some cases and how I think the law looks at them.

1 - You book a flight from A to B because you want to visit the beach.
2 - You buy a ride in a (Warbird, jet, PA28 etc) as a jolly from an adventure company (i.e. not a flight training organisation)
3 - You buy a ride in a PA28 from a flight school to go on a jolly
4 - You buy a ride in a PA28 because you think you might want to learn to fly
5 - You pay for fuel for your mate to fly you over to the next airfield to collect your aircraft from its annual.

1 - Public Transport (AOC + CPL needed)
2 - Public Transport (AOC + CPL needed)?
3 - Flight instruction (FI needed) but under debate in this thread
4 - Flight instruction (FI needed)
5 - Illegal or Public Transport (AOC + CPL needed)

In terms of protecting the unsuspecting public -

1 and 2 make sense,
you can see how the public could believe that 2 and 3 should be the same,
4 makes sense and
5 seems not to make sense in that there is no unsuspecting public involved.
However, changing the rules on 5 would invite abuse.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Fuji, I would deal with a call like yours by explaining that we can't just go and do aerial photography, but if you did want to take photo's whilst undertaking an air experience flight that would be fine.

In your earlier post where you say "Well, the CAA would tell you the pleasure flight is inherently safer. For our pleasure flights it is possible your pilot will be a great deal more experienced becasue the CAA sets higher standards for pilots engaged in pleasure flights and we will have to comply with a whole bunch of additional procedures which the CAA would say were designed to make the flight safer."

Do you have the stats to back that up? Since the vast majority of "pleasure flights" are flown by FI's, most of whom now have CPL's or ATPL's, how can you make the point that they are less experienced.

I certainly know that the team of FI's we have is far more experienced than most of the local air taxi operators. Some are even senior figures in large airlines, so to say that they would be less safe whilst flying a/c that are maintained to the same standard is a load of nonsense.

This thread is creating a problem, not solving it. There has been no communication from our friends at the Belgrano to say that any club is doing anything "illegal" and these so called "dodgy practices" have been going on for years at each and every club/school with no problems, prosecutions or real issues.

I can only think of one incident during a trial lesson, at Bournemouth when a PA28 crashed shortly after T/O. That was down to inexperience of the FI. Since then every club/school I've been associated has changed procedures to ensure that it never happens again.

Pilots love to prove that they are smarter than each other, I have lost count of the number of times I've had to correct wrong information that has been spewed out by PPL's in the club house. More often than not the perpretator has espoused that something is "illegal", with no reference to reality.

If someone can point to a document that shows how most schools and clubs are doing anything wrong by offering "trial lessons" or air experience flights, then fine. But so far there has been nothing of the sort.

[Whirlybird]

for everyone's information....

The following is from CAP 421 - Basic Flying Instructor (Helicopter) Handbook. First published 1979, and reprinted up until the date of my copy, which is 1996. I believe it's now out of date, but some things don't change, and I suspect that Ex 3 is one of them. I quote Exercise 3 in its entirety....

Exercise 3. Air Experience

Aim
To introduce the student to rotary-wing flight

Instructional Guide
1) It is not intended that any flying instruction should be given in this period, but the student should be allowed to accustom himself to the sensations of rotary-wing flight, the attitudes of the aircraft when climbing and descending and, particularly, the ability to reduce speed to zero (i e hover) in the air. He may be given the feel of the stick without any attempt being made to explain its effect in detail.

2) This period can also be used to show the student the immediate vicinity of the airfield, point out the local landmarks and give him a general impression of the circuit area with particular reference to any fixed-wing flying that may be taking place.

That's it!!!!

I daresay the fixed-wing version is a little different, but only in details, I would imagine.

Hmmm...on that basis, I've been gving far too much instruction to my trial lesson students. I'd better stop!!!!!

[Caullystone]

"I went to the school and said I wanted to learn to fly. They said OK, we'll start by booking you a trial lesson. I said no need for that, I know I want to learn to fly. But they insisted"

That was the same for me.... however it was a real lesson "EX4" but that did make me log it as trail lesson???

[robin]

The problem for me is not about trial lessons - this was discussed long ago, when the 'blood chit' was deemed illegal

My issue is the 5th case - asking a friend to take me to pick up (or return me) from my maintenance. Or even offering a friend a ride in my a/c.

If he (for example) were to buy me dinner and a beer after the flight, is that 'valuable consideration'?

[Say again s l o w l y]

No.

Even the CAA couldn't be bothered to prosecute for that!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

If he (for example) were to buy me dinner and a beer after the flight, is that 'valuable consideration'?
Unless you have an exceedingly cheap aeroplane or an exceedingly expensive taste in beer this should be OK under the cost sharing rule.

[Fuji Abound]

I don't think Fuji is unclear about the realities of pleasure flight vs. trial (a.k.a. trail ) lesson. The point is more a debate on the sensibility of the law. Some cases and how I think the law looks at them.

My faith is restored - thank goodness you understand - thank you.


Now what on earth is wrong with all that? It's entirely in the spirit of what Ex 3 is supposed to be....incidentally, as far as I remember it's actually called an Air Experience Flight, not a Trial lesson, which ought to save all this arguing (and Fuji's spelling! ).

Nothing - if you thought you were getting a trial lesson, and that is what you wanted.


If someone can point to a document that shows how most schools and clubs are doing anything wrong by offering "trial lessons" or air experience flights, then fine. But so far there has been nothing of the sort.

I just dont understand your not following the thrust of my argument. Of course there is nothing wrong in offering trial lessons if that is what the punter wanted and thought they were getting. The trouble is trial lessons are often a pleasure flight dressed up as something different.


Do you have the stats to back that up? Since the vast majority of "pleasure flights" are flown by FI's, most of whom now have CPL's or ATPL's, how can you make the point that they are less experienced.

You may well be right, but if you are you need to tell the CAA that all the hoops an AOC holder goes through are complete tosh.


You can call an apple a pear if you wish.

If someone wants a pleasure flight I think I understand what it is they are after. They may well go on and learn to fly and they might not.

I f someone thinks they might to learn to fly and wants a trial lesson I think I also understand what it is they are after.

If you want to call a pleasure flight a trial lesson then the English langauge has nothing to offer in conveying meaning based on the words we use.

.. .. .. and yes, I only raised the subject becasue I think the law is in a mess - I have no issue at all with flying schools offering pleasure flights - jolly good idea in fact, and I have no problem with one qualified pilot agreeing to provide an air taxi serivce to the other to retrieve his aircraft with the cost bieng met.

I do have a reasonable amount to do with the law however. For what it is worth if someone 'phoned up as I did and was sold a trial lesson when they wanted and thought they were getting a pleasure flight and there was an accident I would far rather prosecute than defend!

[Say again s l o w l y]

Most people want to have a go in an aircraft, not just be a passenger.
Those people can only do that with an air experience flight, not a pleasure flight.

That's where this all falls down and is the major differentiator.

Of course AOC holders have to do a lot to be granted a certificate, but it doesn't mean the pilot's themselves are particularily experienced.

If you had an engine failure or other emergency in-flight, who would you rather have sat at the controls? An experienced FI, or a wet behind the ears straight from school CPL in their first flying job?

If the law is unclear, then it would be very difficult to form a case for prosecution. Any half decent defence brief would make mincemeat of shoddy legislation and unclear rules.

In this case I'd rather defend than prosecute!