Training in your own aircraft

[Dexta]

I am thinking of getting my NVFR rating and either CIR or PIFR next year. I have a C172M rated for IFR and in the Airwork category, with the engine on condition. Does anyone know the rules/regs regrading the use of your own a/c for training? Would mine be ruled out because the engine is on condition? I have tried searching the CAR, CAO etc but with little luck so far so any help would be appreciated.

[Kippers7]

Hey Dex
From what i have seen in the past training in your own aircraft is not an issue.
And as for your engine being on condition, should not be an issue either as training is aerial work. Would have a chat to your training provider they will sort you out mate..

[VH-XXX]

This issue comes up when someone realises that the aircraft is not on the schools AOC and starts to ask questions.

Jabba had this problem from memory with his IFR Retard-Vehicle 10 and ended up doing his IFR is some beaten up old Piper.

What was the go Jabba?

Doing an AFR in a private aircraft including experimental seems to be a goer though.

[Bankstown Boy]

There are no legislative issues with using either your own aircraft, even if its engine is O/C. The maintenance release can even be classed private, it doesn't even need to be Airwork, that only becomes an issue if you want to hire it out to the school.

If the school has an issue, find a new one.

Personally, I think that it is a GOOD idea to do the training in the aircraft you will be flying regularly, as that way you become more familiar with the systems and they way that they interact.

[PyroTek]

Jabba had this problem from memory with his IFR Retard-Vehicle 10 and ended up doing his IFR is some beaten up old Piper.

What was the go Jabba?

I think perhaps it is because the Retard is in the experimental category.

Just for instance, looking at The RAC Rates page (http://redcliffeaeroclub.com.au/aircraft_rates.html), it says down the bottom "Instructor hire (own aircraft). Would that not mean that the aircraft does not have to be on the AOC?

Pyro

[Horatio Leafblower]

It would be an unusual flying school that cannot operate a C172 on their AOC - except maybe a helicopter school? :8

Every (fixed wing, Aerial Work) AOC I have seen has the twins listed by type and the Singles grouped as "Single piston engined aeroplanes below 5700kg MTOW except amatuer-built and kit built aeroplanes unless permitted under the Civil Aviation Act" or words close to it.

If you are teaching someone in their own aeroplane, however, you are becoming the defacto aircraft operator and most schools will have a list of things to check and do to bring the aircraft in line with their existing fleet, paperwork, etc.

[Volumex]

You might want to have a chat with your insurance provider to make sure everything is covered - the flying school might have some insurance requirements as well.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Besides insurance, the other major issue is that the training organisation's HAAMC has to become responsible for he aircraft's maintenance. AD's, SB's etc. have to be ensured as being carried out.

The yearly surveys need to include all aircraft operated under the school, and any airspace breaches or incidents that involve the aircraft all get attributed to that school's record.

Understandable why some schools don't want the dramas.

[MACH082]

I used to instruct regularly in owners aircraft. You get to fly some interesting types and often fear for your existance. Especially so when operating farmer joes C172 station hack.

By far the most awful aeroplane I flew was a socata rallaye. God awful, gutless, slow, hot, worse than a tail wheel to taxi. The slots would open whenever you hit turbulence and the wing would drop. This made nav training nausiating.

Yuck.

[peterc005]

Using your own plane shouldn't be an issue, but a couple of points to consider:

1) no need to list specific plane or type of plane on a school's AOC

2) nevertheless, a lot of schools don't like this and will not be enthusiatic about using your plane. They will probably charge you a higher hourly rate for the instructor and might even fob you off if they are busy.

Small flying schools outside the metro are are more likely to be flexible. I've been doing some training at a small regional school and thinks it's great.

3) on condition shouldn't matter, just need a current maintenance release.

I've used my plane for training, and apart from being familiar with it, another benefit is the hourly rate for my plane probably costs me half what it would cost from a flying school.

[outnabout]

Using your own aircraft for training should not be a problem for a good flying school. You are hiring the skills of the instructor - you are not cross-hiring them your aircraft so that they can hire it out to other students. As such there is no need to add your aircraft to the flying school's AOC, nor does the school need to see anything other than the current maintenance release.

Just make sure the instructor is experienced in what you want to learn, and has sufficient experience on the type of aircraft you own. I've made the mistake of hiring an instructor who had less experience on the aircraft type than me (and at the time, my hours on that type were low, very low).

[scavenger]

As such there is no need to add your aircraft to the flying school's AOC, nor does the school need to see anything other than the current maintenance release.

The aeroplane would be operated under the AOC and the flying school assumes the responsibilities of the operator. Any decent school would need to see a lot more than the MR. The school has a duty to the instructor as well as the student, and would certainly not be meeting their duty by assigning their instructors to an unknown aeroplane. Any school that would is unlikely to have decent instructors in the first place...

The maintenance release can even be classed private, it doesn't even need to be Airwork, that only becomes an issue if you want to hire it out to the school.

Rubbish - the flying training described by the OP is aerial work.

If you are teaching someone in their own aeroplane, however, you are becoming the defacto aircraft operator and most schools will have a list of things to check and do to bring the aircraft in line with their existing fleet, paperwork, etc.

and

Besides insurance, the other major issue is that the training organisation's HAAMC has to become responsible for he aircraft's maintenance. AD's, SB's etc. have to be ensured as being carried out.

Exactly right:ok:

[T28D]

Scavenger EXACTLY WRONG see the earlier post, not only doesnt the aircraft have to go on the AOC the type isnt necessary on the AOC only the Instructor/ATO you use needs to be type approved if it is a Twin or Complex Aircraft or above 5700 kg.

Out and About is right on the money.

[peterc005]

I've used my plane for flying at a couple of different flying schools over the years.

This includes CPL, NVFR, Aerobatic low level waivers etc.

Never been a problem. The school might ask to see the Maintenance Release and proof of insurance.

The schools don't seem to mind, but are not enthusiastic, about using your own plane. It may mean is the school is busy you become a low priority.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Sorry, T28.

This question exactly was posed to CASA prior to conducting an initial twin endo.
Because the type wasn't on the school's AOC, I had to conduct the endorsement using my instructor priviledges, but using the school's approved training syllabus (initial ME endorsement). Licence or rating issue, however, must be conducted under the AOC.

My advice is to ask CASA DIRECTLY, not using a bulletin board, and get the answer in writing. No FOI interpretational stuff ups then.:ok:

CAO 82.1 Conditions on AOCs authorising Charter and Aerial Work Ops

6. Obligations in relation to operating different aircraft models

6.1 This subsection applies to each operator who holds a certificate authorising charter, or aerial work, operations in an aircraft identified in the certificate by:

(a) manufacturer and type only; or

(b) aircraft class only.

6.2 The operator must ensure that:

(a) the operations manual contains current and appropriate operating information, procedures and instructions (the specific instructions) for each aircraft type and model operated; and

(b) before a pilot operates an aircraft, the chief pilot is satisfied that the pilot:
(i) is competent to operate the aircraft in accordance with the specific instructions for the aircraft type and model; and
(ii) understands the differences in each model of the aircraft type operated by the operator; and

(c) the operations manual, the maintenance control manual or other airworthiness control document contains appropriate maintenance control instructions for each aircraft type and model operated.

6.3 A current pilot operating handbook (POH) or aircraft flight manual (AFM) for the aircraft type and model when attached to the operations manual is taken to contain the specific instructions.

6.4 However, if the specific instructions in the POH or AFM do not contain instructions to ensure compliance with the Australian legislative requirements for operations of the aircraft type and model, these instructions must be stated in the operations manual.

6.5 In this subsection:
appropriate means sufficiently detailed to enable the safe operation of the aircraft type and model in accordance with the Australian legislative requirements.
Australian legislative requirements means the requirements of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 and the Civil Aviation Orders.

Note An example of an Australian legislative requirement mentioned in paragraph 6.4 is the obligation, under regulation 220 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, to include in the operations manual specific instructions for computation of fuel quantities.

[T28D]

The thread is regarding a C 172 , not initial twin or a complex aircraft.

[Horatio Leafblower]

CAO 82 whatever, quoted above, doesn't see the distinction you are making. The 1980s were 30 years ago, drag yourself into the 21st century

[T28D]

I am in the 20th century where AD Eng 4/7 allows a C172 operating private on condition to be actually on line at a Flying School under an AOC , fact is the AOC nominates the type of aircraft on the AOC not specific registrations.

An ATO for example can operate outside an AOC and is within the regulations to test in a private aircraft.

Owners of Limited catgory aircraft almost always have the distinction of testing outside an AOC in privately owned aircraft, very few Limited Category aircraft operate under an AOC.

If the general view is to always lock your operation into the most restrictive regime imaginable the go for it don't let the enlightened folk be your guide, go for the most prescriptive method of operation you can concoct, CASA will love you, they really like overcompliant subservient operators.

Or simply obey the regulations as writ, nothing more, nothing less.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
The fact that this is even an issue is yet another example of the quite unnecessarily complex, convoluted and contradictory regulations, under which Australian aviation labours ( or is that Labor's).

I am reminded of the Delphic pronouncement of one CASA regional office that you could not train on your own Experimental Amateur Built aircraft, despite quite specific regulations that say you can ----- all on the basis of "their interpretations" that the aircraft had to be "on the AOC", and only Standard Category C of A" aircraft could be on an AOC.

That was sorted out very smartly --- by a previous senior management of CASA ---- I wonder what the "policy" might be, now, if the precedent had not already been set.

Tootle pip!!

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

T28D
Yes, but the question of aircraft other than <5700kg SE was raised by several other people, yourself included.
Believe you when stating being a private category aircraft does not matter when you own the aircraft and want to train in it. No debate there.

The rules may be restrictive, but for the most part (and no doubt, there are exceptions) there is no grey area. Either you are following them, or you are breaking them.
Unfortunately, the litigious nature of society these days will leave you open to some severe financial penalties if someone decides they have an avenue to sue if something goes wrong (not to mention CASA lubing up to the elbow for their turn if you really make a hash of it).:eek:
A well known and respected ATO in QLD spent several (stressful) years clearing up a claim where a BFR pilot wrecked his aircraft and tried to persue a civil suit claiming that the ATO was in control.
We all know insurance companies will use any excuse to deny a claim.

To clarify?
Experimental category;
Allows endorsements (not ratings) or if the aircraft is kit or amatuer built, flying training. (CAR 262AP)

Limited category;
Special purpose operations only.
Training for endorsement only in the same type or category as the aircraft (CAR 262AM), however the restriction on flying over built-up areas may well make limited category impractical anyway (eg airspace endorsements).
As for testing, can you dig up a reference? (Not being smart, I am genuinely interested.)

If I have stuffed this interpretation up, please correct me, but include a reference.

Agree with most here, however, in that the rules are overly complex.:ugh:

[borntofry]

I hope the process will not be overly complecated as I will be training for my Private pilots license early next year in my own aircraft a Texan top class. The aircraft will be brand new. I am told I need to fly it for 25 hours before i can use it to be trained in. If anyone has any tips that I shall require to make this happen i would appreciate that you be forthcoming with your idea. Im looking forward to the instrument part as i have never done that before.

[Silver Spur]

Gday Dexta,

Check your PM

[Dexta]

Thanks Silver Spur, have replied.

Thanks for all the input everybody, it appears it is the "Engine on Condition" that is the sticking point. I am trying to get hold of someone in CASA who might be able to give me a straight answer (in writing!), but I won't hold my breath.

[T28D]

AD Eng $/& is quite clear, operating a private aircraft on condition is relatively straight forward, main consideration is good record keeping, oil consumption, temp and pressure trends.

There is a very good article on TBO in the latest EAA magazine that debunks all the commonly held shibboleths.

Proerly Cared for most IO 360 in C172 will go well over TBO very reliably.

The ancillaries, oil lines and magneto drives are more of a worry than the core of the engine.

[LeadSled]

---- it appears it is the "Engine on Condition" that is the sticking point.

Probably because the Flying School doesn't know what they are talking about ---- or a prejudiced against what most of the rest of the world have always done, and we have done in Australia for something like 15 years.

Remember ---- it is RECOMMENDED TBO, by the manufacturers, as far as FAA (or whoever) is concerned, it is just that, a recommendation, it has no regulatory force.

Indeed, the Australian practice of enforcing the R-TBO for commercial ops., and canning the many life extension extension programs that existed for many years ---- long before AD ENG 4 ---- is a direct result of the CASA lack of depth of knowledge re. piston engines, consequent on the retirement of the last bloke they had, who had real in-depth knowledge.

There were plenty of Chieftain engines running close to 3000 hours, there are plenty of C-152s in flying schools with upwards of 4000h on the engine.

Find another school.

If they are "head in the sand" (or somewhere else quite dark) about this, they are probably as ignorant about a whole range of things you need to learn.

Tootle pip!!