Instructing? Can it be done? In UK

[gowaz]

I would like to teach my daughters to fly, in my own aircraft. It is on LAA/PFA Permit. I assume for her to be able to log P u/t, I would need to complete an instructors course. I would like to get the qualification but if LAA type not approved waste of money. Also could I instruct from any airfield? How old before she can log flying (14?) solo ?, exams etc etc ? Any guidance or past experience gratefully received. ATPL A / H (IR) (in the UK)

[S-Works]

You will need to register as an RTF and operate from an appropriate airfield.

You will need an unrestricted FI(A) which will require you to supervised for as I recall 100hrs and 25 solo send offs. Which will mean you having to either find another Instructor who is unrestricted to supervise you teaching or work through another school in order to get the restriction removed.

You will need to a ground examiner or find a ground examiner in order to conduct the exams.

She needs to be 14 to learn to fly, 16 for solo and 17 for licence issue.

She needs to co own the LAA aircraft with you.

[Whopity]

App 1 to JAR-FCL 1.125Training conducted on aeroplanes having a certificate of airworthiness issued or accepted by a JAA Member State will enable an applicant to obtain a single-engine piston class rating for licence issue.So a Permit aircraft will not do for ab-initio training.
AIC W001/2011 covers FLYING TRAINING AND FLYING TESTS IN PRIVATE AIRCRAFT
In Annex A it States:A Training must not be towards the grant of a licence or a rating in a licence.

[S-Works]

Ah, my mistake I had thought that with 50/50 ownership that the ab initio training could be done.

[Genghis the Engineer]

A sole owner of a permit aeroplane can be taught to fly on it.

Historically, CAA has accepted that members of the same immediate family qualify as "sole owner" for the purpose. This certainly exists in some BMAA documents for Permit to Fly aeroplanes, and that precedent alone - which has been there for at-least a dozen years, should solve the problem with regard - because it's your daughters you want to teach.

TADS beginning “BM” are for Type Approved microlights, which may be used for commercial flying training, as is TADS A-13 (for the Bantam B-22S). TADS beginning BMO are for Type Accepted microlights, and may not be used for flying training, other than of the sole owner or members of their close family. Where there is no issue number for a TADS, this means that the TADS is still in draft and the aircraft may not yet have been considered fit for issue of a permit to fly. HADS apply to BMAA homebuilt microlights, to which the same permissions apply as for type accepted microlights.

And this is from the BMAA (and thus CAA) approved operators manual for the SkyRanger, which I just got from Flylight's website:

This manual is not intended to teach you to fly the aircraft, or to build it. Learning to fly should be accomplished under the supervision of a light aircraft or microlight flying instructor experienced on the type. At time of writing a flying instructor can only receive renumeration for flying instruction using an amateur built aircraft when teaching the sole owner (includes spouse and immediate family members) for the grant of a licence to fly.

So you could certainly buy a Microlight and get your daughters to NPPL(M), but I'm pretty certain that LAA should confirm that the same applies to, say, a Europa, and if you train them on that for NPPL(SSEA) then EASA have no say in the matter.

I'd not ask any confirmatory question directly of CAA - if anybody needs to ask it, let LAA or BMAA do that, who are good at phrasing the question in exactly the right way (and have the authority to decide whether they need to ask the question at-all, or not).

G

[S-Works]

It was that which I was alluding to in my original reply but Whoppitys stout response made me think I was wrong. However I have spoken to the LAA this afternoon and they have confirmed that should a father and daughter own a permit aircraft between them then the daughter can indeed do her ab initio training on it.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Just occasionally, common sense prevails in air law! It's nice when it does.

G

[gowaz]

Thank you for all your replies. The cub will be busy.

[BEagle]

I asked the CAA for a policy statement about this last November and received the following reply (my bold text for emphasis):

As you have identified, if a person pays for training in their own
aircraft and the only payment they make in relation to the flight is to
the instructor for his services, the flight will normally be considered
to be private (rather than aerial work). This means that a Permit to Fly
aircraft could be used.

It is not clear to us why JAR-FCL explicitly states that training must
be carried out in an aircraft holding a Certificate of Airworthiness.
However, we believe that the intention was in fact to allow the training
to take place in any aircraft, including one operating under a Permit to
Fly. We will accept training in a Permit to Fly aircraft as credit
towards an application for a PPL(A).

One additional key factor to consider is that the training organisation
must be satisfied that the aircraft they are using for training are
appropriate. They must also declare the aircraft types to the CAA. This
should ensure that aircraft which are inappropriate for training in
(perhaps because they possess certain handling qualities) are not used
for 'ab-initio' PPL training.


A reasonable, pragmatic, non-'Sir Humphrey Appleby' view. Basically that 'having a certificate of airworthiness issued or accepted by a JAA Member State' simply means 'is an aircraft deemed safe to fly, not some unknown death-trap'!