Using own plane for PPL training

[peterc005]

Hope someone can shed some light on the CASA regs for using your own plane for PPL training. It's for my 18yo son.

I've used the plane in the past for aeros, NVFR, BFR and CPL etc training without problems.

I'm informed that all aircraft used for "basic training" must be on the flying schools AOC, making it impractical to use your own plane. I've searched the regs, but cannot find a reference to this.

Does anyone know which CASA regs this falls under?

Is "basic training" PPL or only GFPT?

[Horatio Leafblower]

I have a distinct feeling we have seen this topic before.

I presume the aircraft in question in a single, piston-engined aircraft below 5700kg. I have never seen a flying school AOC without this class of aircraft endorsed upon it.

In the good old days we would just get in and go, but in these days where paperwork is a substitute for intelligence the flying school would need to create part of their ops manual specifically describing how to fly that aircraft, fuel flows to be used, std power settings, etc etc etc.

Bloke I know supplied his own C182 for his son's PPL training. Again, assuming the aircraft is nothing too exotic, the only reason a school can't do the same for you is time/effort/profit margin related.

good luck

[peterc005]

I'd have hoped the POH would have covered the performance basics.

The plane in question is pretty conventional with a Lycoming 320-D1A engine.

I've been hitting Google and can't find the CASA source regs.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Is it a certified design or a homebuilt?

"pretty much conventional" sounds pretty broad! :}

[peterc005]

The plane is VH registered in the Normal, Aerobatic, Airwork and Night categories. Plane is hangared at YMMB close to the flying school.

Can't see what the fuss is, but if I can dig thru the relevant CAR it should clarify the matter.

[VH-XXX]

I'll narrow it down for you HLB !

http://www.airport-data.com/images/aircraft/thumbnails/040/040334.jpg

[peterc005]

Yes, that's my son at Tooraddin when he was about 45cm shorter.

He's a bit taller now (October 2012), here he is in a C172 at YMMB:

http://sphotos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/66191_10151465430381978_1837546286_n.jpg

[peterc005]

Time flies (pun intended), here he was in October 1997 in a C172 at Troy Aviation YMMB:

http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/149687_10151465419886978_1232775097_n.jpg

[Frank Arouet]

Hope someone can shed some light on the CASA regs for using your own plane for PPL training. It's for my 18yo son.

I know a bloke who went solo in his Ovation, another was still flying around on the old PPL/R, (restricted) PPL in a Citation.

Ring CASA, - they are your friends, and are here to help you. Rules, (or "instruments") change from day to day.

I note your young bloke is right handed. That could be a problem.

[peterc005]

Good idea, I'll give CASA a call in the morning.

Wonder if it would be the Licensing or Operations section?

[LeadSled]

peter005,
There is no aviation regulatory problem, you just have to negotiate a deal with your (whoever the training AOC holder is) proposed organisation.

What "having an aircraft on the AOC"means these days varies with the FOI/Team who/which is assigned to the org. If you can't sort it out with the org., and they blame CASA, talk to the FOI/Team Leader.

The real reason many flying schools don't like you using your own is they don't make as much money, although the excuses will vary, "insurance prohibits it" is a favorite one.

Having mentioned insurance, make certain you have that squared away in all respects, not just that training can be conducted in the aircraft. In particular, make certain all aspects of Workers Comp. for the instructor are covered.

Tootle pip!!

[Arnold E]

I note your young bloke is right handed. That could be a problem.
Fly from the right seat, no problems.:ok:

[VH-XXX]

It might cost you extra to have the instructor un-teach what you have already taught him :\ Don't forget that and be ready for it!

[peterc005]

@LeadSled - thanks for the tip.

The flying school said using our plane would be no problem when we were going to sign up, but then turned around and said no.

It's not just the cost, our plane, in my opinion, has lower hours and better maintenance than their fleet. My son is very familiar with our plane and knows the systems well. The plane is a much loved member of the family.

He's already on the insurance for training and there is heaps of broad coverage.

I'll have another quiet word to the CFI to see if they'll budge. He's about to do his GFPT and it would be a good plane for his nav exercises.

I'd appreciate to know if anyone knows of any relevant CARs, I can't find anything.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Peter, it's not covered in the CARs.

Leadsled has hit the nail on the head: it is between you and the CFI (or perhaps the school's owner, if not the CFI).

A school in my area charges a premium of $20 per hour for using your own aircraft, I presume to recoup the profit they would otherwise have made on their own aircraft.

Presuming the school has SPEA<5700kg on its AOC, it can use an Airtourer if it wants to.

Good luck. I'm not sure the CFI would be best pleased to see the matter discussed here...

[hiwaytohell]

Peter.. we had many pilots do the training in their own aircraft. Putting an unusual type on the AOC was also no big deal (although these days it can take a while depending on the relationship the school has with CASA)... mind you the Victa should already be included because of their below 5,700 group.

Mind you we charged the instructor rate for dual & solo, even so it still worked out slightly cheaper for the student plus they were getting experience in the aircraft they would be flying.

If you are in Melbourne try calling Guy Pearson at YMEN he seems to be quite reasonable.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Not just an insurance issue.

The Maintanance Controller for the AoC must also take responsibility for the maintanance, (ensure all AD's, etc all complied with), but shouldn't be an issue with a reputable engineer.

Also seen cases where the school was held responsible at an ops inspection as to why "their" aircraft (read as CASA assuming all the hours conducted by that aircraft were undertaked by the school, including the twice weekly airspace breaches by the aircraft owner) had so many ATC reports attached.

[Grogmonster]

The most important things in this day is the Insurance, Maint release is at least Aerial Work category, (might have to be CHTR), not private, and possibly a cross hire agreement between you as owner and the Aero Club as hirer. This will cover off most of the maintenace items such as Ad's etc mentioned in one of the previous posts.

Groggy

[C82R]

Peter

I imported a 2006 C172S from the States for my son to do his PPL late last year. The insurance as mentioned above is a prudent move but as far as the regs are concerned the only issue is to ensure the MR is issued for Aerial work. Nearly all the flying schools at AF were happy to teach him to fly in our aircraft and he certaibnly isn't the first.

So long as your son is happy with the instructor and your happy with the level of instruction he is receiving there should be no problems. I am sure there are other flying schools around where you are who would be enthused to teach your son to fly in your aircraft.

[peterc005]

Happy to pay the $20 an hour premium, which is stated on the rate sheet.

The plane is in Airwork, the plane has a very good maintenance history and the insurance is sorted. I''ve done plenty of training in the plane over the years.

The question I'm trying to answer is "does a plane need to be on a school's AOC to use it for basic training (PPL)?".

I'm still getting conflicting answers and thought if I could find a reference in CAR or the other CASA documents this would be clarified.

[peterc005]

@C82R - thanks for the post. Was your plane put on the schools AOC?

The instructor he has had so far is excellent and I've been impressed by her. It's not really practical to change schools, I'd prefer just to quietly resolve the issue.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Yes, the aircraft needs to be nominated on the Flying School's AOC.

BUT

I bet you their AOC says "Single Piston Engined Aircraft below 5,700kg MTOW".

It will not nominate the C152, C172, PA28 or any other aircraft they currently use. It will nominate the class of aircraft, not the type. Your Airtourer will fall into this class too.

You can probably refer to the CAAP on Operations Manuals (CAAP 215-1(1) I think) and the Air Operators Certification Manual to find CASA's expectation of an operator's obligations or acceptable methods of compliance.

Interestingly, you seem to have previous experience on this matter with both you and I offering advice on this thread (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/471289-training-your-own-aircraft.html).

What's changed :confused:

[NIK320]

Peter your reference is CAO 82.1 (Conditions on Air Operators’ Certificates authorising charter operations and aerial work operations)


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.


As the others have said, the aircraft will be on the AOC.
It will really come down to the schools operations manual and willingness to amend it to include an airtourer. There is a fair chance it won't be in the OM already. I can't say I've seen one of those at a school before.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Peter, this is very simple. Your aircraft falls under the definition of CAO 40.1.0,
SINGLE ENGINE AEROPLANES NOT EXCEEDING 5 700KG MAXIMUM TAKE-OFF WEIGHT
All single engine aeroplanes not exceeding 5 700 kg maximum take-off weight, except for those listed elsewhere in an Appendix to this Order as requiring a specific type or class endorsement (which, btw, does not mean either a Victa Airtourer or CT4. They are not listed elsewhere.)

I do not know of a single GA training school which would not have this on their AoC list.

Your answer in this case is an emphatic NO. It will already be on their AoC. The personal choice of the CFI or CP will be the deciding factor.:ok:

Further amendment (good ref, Nik): the personal choice of the CP or CFI as to amending the Ops Manual if required will be the deciding factor.

[peterc005]

@Horatio Leafblower - my experience in the past has been that while flying schools are not enthusiastic about using your own plane, it shouldn't be a problem.

That post by me was late last year and then I'd never had a problem using my own plane for training.

It's only now this year that we want to use the plane for my sons PPL that it's become an issue. An unexpected issue.

The references above are what I was looking for and I'll download and read them in detail.

The question I'll ask the flying school is "does the AOC list classes of planes or individual types?".

[Clearedtoreenter]

Some bean counters seem to have a view that they dont like their (not) highly valuable, state of the art, no expense spared, superbly maintained fleet sitting there costing money, and hence profit going out of the window whilst their (not) highly paid instructors, from whom they make no money, (ha!) are out enjoying themselves flying someone else's plane. They will always preference their own fleet. They'll do anything to keep their planes flying, hiring and cross hiring to anyone who breathes, because they think that's how they make money. Then they see the extra cost and responsibility to keep records, monitor the the training, testing, currency, medical etc for a student from whom they make little money. You can perhaps see one reason why this industry is like it is.

[truthinbeer]

I know a bloke who has just finished his training in his own aircraft at Camden. Didn't mention any problems doing so. Call Curtis Aviation, they may give you the low down.

[buzzz.lightyear]

I would think the best way would be to complete the GFPT in the 172. By the look of the photos he's obviously comfortable with it. (and has been since 97)
While this is happening sort out the AOC CAR issues and then do the navs/nvfr/cpl in the other one.
That way he gets the benefit of both types.
Particularly having a bit of 172 time will then be a good transition to the 182/206/210 later on instead of having all the eggs in the one basket.
Ask his Instructor... She will know what's best.. Sounds like she has done a great job so far..

[peterc005]

@buzzz.lightyear - that's the current plan, use the school's basic trainer to finish GFPT (another couple of solo hours), and then hopefully switch across to the Airtourer for the cross-country navs.

Junior is very familiar and comfortable with the Airtourer, in particular the GPS. The only problem I can see is him getting airborne for solo nav exercises and hitting the GPS "GoTo" button rather than using a map and dead reckoning.

[jas24zzk]

Strikes me that someone is making it harder than it needs to be.

I would take it on board that said person did not want my money and go elsewhere.

We have the reverse situation at YVFT, where one of the students dad is an instructor, but not employed as one. (does work as pilot in the industry however) They do not own an aeroplane.

All the paperwork was happily taken care of, and now the dad is teaching his son to fly, in aircraft hired from YVFT.

All training providers charge an extra for training/checking in ones own aircraft (that also extends out to solo time as well), there is a little bit of extra admininistration involved for the AOC holder, and the charges I have seen around the country for this are not profit making, merely there to recoup some of the costs involved.


It isn't hard, and anyone throwing it up as so doesn't really want your business. Go elsewhere.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Junior is very familiar and comfortable with the Airtourer, in particular the GPS. The only problem I can see is him getting airborne for solo nav exercises and hitting the GPS "GoTo" button rather than using a map and dead reckoning.


The "only" problem?!??:=
Peter, a bit of friendly advice. That GPS will be just about the biggest problem you will give to your young fella. Don't get me wrong, GPS (GNSS) is a fantastic invention, but one of the biggest hurdles I see with flight reviews is over-reliance on technology. When that piece of kit falls over, they're lost. Learn time to map to ground properly without cheating.:ok:

[peterc005]

@MakeItHappenCaptain - it's a bit of a generational thing. If he had a choice he'd be flying a full glass cockpit G1000 C172 at OAA, or maybe a glass Warrior from MFS, not looking at steam gauges.

Most of the training fleet at Moorabbin was built before he was born and from his perspective are relics. Given a chance he'd choose a Cirrus over a Piper. You should see the look on his face when shown around a Tiger Moth.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Generational thing has nothing to do with it.

All navigation is based on the principle that if you fly at a certain speed in a certain direction for a certain time you will be in a certain place, hence why three of the four required instruments for VFR flight are an airspeed indicator, compass and a clock.

GNSS, as I said, is a fantastic development. The problem comes when people forget their situational awareness and just, as you said, hit the goto button while putting the brain in neutral. As a proper pilot, your lad needs to be able to use his map and relate what he sees outside to what's on the paper, not just follow a magenta line. :hmm:

Paddy's law says Murphy was an optimist and one day, he'll have a complete electrical failure and that GNSS will be no use whatsoever. The glass cockpit is just progress, but there's no guarantee his first job will be on glass and he will have enormous difficulty with a proper scan when it comes to instrument flying in an analog cockpit if he has no experience there, but that is not my point.

IMO, your GNSS unit, regardless of which aircraft it is in, is one of the biggest impediments to learning navigation properly. Do him a favour and give him a WAC chart instead.:ok:

ps. You can always confiscate the data card. :E

[peterc005]

He's got all the charts, but comes from the smart-phone generation. They expect everything at their finger tips, on-line and automatic.

Showing him NAIPS and the Air Services web site I explained in the past weather and flight plans were done be fax. Don't think he's ever heard of a fax, let alone used one.

Good idea about removing the data card. Maybe then he'll pay attention to heading and time.