Requirement to fly a Trial Lesson

[Lee806]

I've heard on the grapevine that an instructor rating is not necessarily required to carry a member of the public for their first flight when operating within a club environment.
Does anyone know anything about this?

[Piper.Classique]

In which country, and what sort of club?

[Whopity]

EU Regulation 216/2011 Article 7 requires that Persons responsible for providing flight training shall hold an appropriate certificate. issued in accordance with the requirements in Annex III.

The UK ANO Art 80 requires that flying instruction for the purpose defined in the order is not permitted by any person unless:
(a) they hold a licence, granted or rendered valid under this Order or a Part-FCL licence, entitling them to act as pilot in command of the aircraft for the purpose and in the circumstances under which the instruction is to be given; and
(b) the licence includes an instructor’s rating entitling the holder to give the instruction or the holder of the licence holds a valid instructor’s certificate.

Regulation 245/2014 amending Annex III includes the following statement which may have been assummed by some to infer that "introductory flights" may be given by a person who is not an instructor:2. Notwithstanding the privileges of the holders of licences as defined in Annex I to this Regulation, holders of pilot licences issued in accordance with Subpart B or C of Annex I to this Regulation may carry out flights referred to in Article 6(4a) of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012. This is without prejudice to compliance with any additional requirements for the carriage of passengers or the development of commercial operations defined in Subparts B or C of Annex I to this Regulation.’ Incidentally there is no "Article 6(4a)"!

If a flight is not a lesson, then who pays for it? The passenger may contribute towards the cost of a private flight under cost sharing arrangements Art 267, but if they pay for the entire flight, it is public transport which requires an AOC.

[Level Attitude]

A Trial Lesson is just that a lesson. So must be flown by an Instructor and under the auspices of a Flying School (ATO).

A Trial Flight/Introductory Flight could be undertaken, in certain European countries (not the UK), by an experienced pilot (not an Instructor) under Club arrangements.

EASA Rules stopped this. However Germany, in particular, are lobbying to have this changed - and are continuing to allow this whilst awaiting the Rule change.

The above all assumes that the Passenger is paying the whole cost of the flight.

carry a member of the public for their first flight when operating within a club environmentThere is nothing to stop a PPL doing this - doesn't even have to be a club environment. But the Pilot must pay, at least their fair share of, the cost of the flight and how would a member of the public find out about this 'opportunity'? Advertising is a big No No.

[BigEndBob]

Exercise 3....Air Experience.

No mention of Trial lesson.
Since when did Trial Lessons appear on the syllabus.

I know, when flying schools try to undercut the oppostion by advertising a one hour Trial Lesson with 40 brief and 20 minutes flying!

Then people get all hung about the TL must be taught something.
Which usually happens.

I can see where the Germans are coming from.

[Lee806]

"A Trial Flight/Introductory Flight could be undertaken, in certain European countries (not the UK), by an experienced pilot (not an Instructor) under Club arrangements.".........Now I like the sound of that!

I was hoping to allow a member of the public (temporary member for the day) to fly with selected club members (PPL holders).
The pilot would not get paid, and theoretically a member of the public would be paying for membership for the day and a free 30 minute flight. ?!?!

Any suggestions anybody?
I've tried reading annex II, subpart five, paragraph 6, subsection 19......!.... Only an overpaid solicitor can understand that EASA rubbish.

[nick14]

Done it at Leicester a few times.

Perfectly legal, just do a temp membership form. The pilots volunteer for it, fly from the left and just show people the local area that is all.

It should never be referred to as a trial lesson, that infers teaching which can only be an instructor.

It's just designed to attract business that's all, great little idea in conjunction with an open day etc

[GgW]

"A Trial Flight/Introductory Flight could be undertaken, in certain European countries (not the UK), by an experienced pilot (not an Instructor) under Club arrangements.".

Could you please define an experience pilot(that is not an instructor) to go and conduct a flight "acting as if he is a instructor".
By experience pilot do you mean one of the "Lords" of the flying club that has been a honorary member for the last 25 years and does his 10-15 hours per year?

It's just designed to attract business that's all,

In what way? As a CFI/HOT I struggle with that idea. I have had many open days in the past all done by flight instructors. If somebody cannot afford a half hour trail lesson, how is he going to afford a LAPL/PPL?

My only solution to this is to allow CRI's to teach Exercise 3.

[nick14]

As a CRI you cannot teach a student without a licence. Only an FI can.

It's not about money. The whole idea is to get people who wouldn't otherwise think of paying for a quick flight, into the air and experience it for the first time. The free flight is an attraction and the volunteers are told specifically that it's not a lesson it's just an experience. It's not time which can be logged unless the pilot is an FI, which most are not.

I know for a fact it works. Up to you whether you want to do it.

[Whopity]

Perfectly legal, just do a temp membership form. The pilots volunteer for it, fly from the left and just show people the local area that is all. How many clubs can afford to provide free flights, how many lessons would it take to cover the cost of just one such "free flight"? If the passenger makes any payment whatsoever, it is a public transport flight! The pilot volunteering has nothing to do with the status of the flight, it simply negates the cost sharing exemption in Art 267.
260 (1) For the purposes of this Order and subject to Part 34, an aircraft in flight is flying on a
public transport fl ight if the conditions specifi ed in paragraph (2) are met.
(2) The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are:
(a) the aircraft is not flying on a commercial air transport flight; and
(b) that
(i) valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or
cargo in the aircraft on that flight

[foxmoth]

Perfectly legal, just do a temp membership form. The pilots volunteer for it, fly from the left and just show people the local area that is all.

Are you charging for the temporary membership, if so I rather suspect this would still be seen as "valuable consideration" and making the legality very questionable!

[Genghis the Engineer]

A CPL who is not an instructor could do remunerated trial flights under an AtoA AOC, but the "student" couldn't log it, they'd be a pax. This is the rule used for things like tourist Tiger Moth or Dragon Rapide flights at various places.

Otherwise you need to be an FI, as various others have said.

I'm sure as a CRI I could do much more flying if I could do trial lessons, but I can't.


Nothing to stop you taking friends flying for free of course. We all do that, but it's just a private flight with a pax.

G

[Mickey Kaye]

And how much does an AtoA AOC cost? Both directly in indirectly in both time and money?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Pre-application Information | Air Operations | Operations and Safety (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1196&pagetype=90&pageid=8250)

A to A AOC

An AOC with a deliberately limited scope that allows operators to conduct flights that depart from and arrive at the same aerodrome. It has the following conditions:

Flights must be day VFR only
Only applicable to aircraft not exceeding 5,000 kg Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW)
Flights are restricted in radius of operation of not more than 50 nautical miles (aeroplanes) or 25 nautical miles (helicopters) from the aerodrome. Application to operate outside of this area may be considered and is likely to incur additional costs.
The AOC may be issued with a limited but seasonal validity period depending upon the requirement.
A to A operators are not required to hold an Operating Licence.

Charges are on page 5 of http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS5%20No.%20287.pdf: £270 or £90/month, whichever is greater.

I've never tried to put the paperwork together for one of these, but I'd guess a week or two of a good person's time.

G

[nick14]

No this is the point chaps.

The pilots volunteer their aircraft for the day/part day. Cost is wholly on the pilot. No charge is made for the membership it's purely an insurance requirement. Time is not logged, pilot sits in the appropriate seat and it's just like taking your mates up.

Perfectly legal and does good for the whole club.

[Level Attitude]

The pilots volunteer their aircraft for the day/part day. Cost is wholly on the pilot. No charge is made for the membership it's purely an insurance requirement. Time is not logged, pilot sits in the appropriate seat and it's just like taking your mates up.Providing the passenger does not / is not expected to make any payment for the flight then, as per my Post #4, I agree; but I do not believe this is what Lee806 was asking.

As a CRI you cannot teach a student without a licence. Only an FI can.Probably for a new Thread but: 'Of course they can!' It is just that any training they give cannot be counted towards any required for Licence Issue.

Could you please define an experience pilot(that is not an instructor) to go and conduct a flight "acting as if he is a instructor".I did not say they would be acting as an Instructor, I said they would be acting as a Pilot with a 'fare paying' passenger. What an "Experienced Pilot" is, in the context of this Thread, I cannot say as I am UK based where this is not allowed - there being no 'Club Arrangements' approved by the CAA to permit this. You would need to seek out the German rules - there was a Thread on this last year (15 May 2013) which you can look up if you are interested.

NB: The CAA does define Pilot experience requirements for Charity Flights (see AIC W104/2012) so if 'Club Arrangements' did ever become allowed in UK I would expect something similar.

I was hoping to allow a member of the public (temporary member for the day) to fly with selected club members (PPL holders).
The pilot would not get paid, and theoretically a member of the public would be paying for membership for the day and a free 30 minute flight. ?!?!

Any suggestions anybody?Whether pilot is being paid or not is completely irrelevant.
Who is paying for the flight - In this case the unlucky 'member of the public'
Completely illegal (in the UK at present)


Free HD Flat Screen TV with every Plug purchased !!!
(By the way the Plug costs £900)
Come On !

[Cunliffe]

I asked to book a pleasure flight at my local aerodrome about 5 years ago. I was told that it would have to be called a trial lesson because the insurance for pleasure flights was much dearer.
I thought that the risks involved in allowing a novice to handle the controls would be much greater than if they were just a passenger.
Was I given wrong information?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Depends upon their insurance company I imagine.

It's more likely true that most of the business is from instruction, and so it's never been worth the bother and costs to get the Air Operators Certificate that would be required to do it otherwise.

G

[portsharbourflyer]

Cunliffe,

It wasn't insurance the answer is on this page, the A to A scenic flight requires an AOC, therefore the pleaure / scenic flight needs to cover the AOC cost hence the increased price.

I use to work for flying school with an A to A scenic flight operation. Before I could fly on the scenic flight I had to do an OPC (in a 172FR) with an examiner, all the ground stuff (ditching, first aid, dangerous goods, security etc), but as an instructor I could still fly the same plane in the same airspace from the right side with as you say a complete stranger and novice at the controls as a trial lesson.

So it is not just the cost of the AOC registration itself, but also the additional pilot ground training and opc costs that also adds to the cost of running an A to A AOC.

[Level Attitude]

portsharbourflyer,
A nice possible explanation but I am thinking that the answer to Cunliffe's question might be even simpler:

He asked a Flying School (without an AOC) about a possible pleasure flight and they gave a 'not necessarily fully correct', but easy to understand, layman's answer about why he could only have a Trial lesson.

[Whopity]

LA has summed it up in a nutshell.
I thought that the risks involved in allowing a novice to handle the controls would be much greater than if they were just a passenger. You could not really compare the risks as they would be assessed on a different scale. As a fare paying passenger, your expectations are of a totally safe flight with a highly qualified pilot in an aircraft maintained to public transport standards (hence the cost). As a potential student attending a flying club your expectations are one of adventure, a new experience with a marginally higher element of risk, you will fly a club aircraft, where any risk of allowing you to control it is mitigated by having a fully trained and qualified instructor. If the flight were conducted as an AOC operation (Pleasure Flight) then the passenger would not be permitted to touch the controls.

[Level Attitude]

I've heard on the grapevine that an instructor rating is not necessarily required to carry a member of the public for their first flight when operating within a club environment.
Does anyone know anything about this?it seems the OP's grapevine was better informed than we thought !

see IN-2014/093

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=6254 (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=6254)

[TheOddOne]

Having briefly read through 093, I sincerely hope that the financial restrictions only apply to flights conducted by PPLs or LAPLs. We sell Trial Lessons at approximately the same price as a regular training flight; we certainly couldn't afford to take a punt on letting a PPL do a flight at marginal cost (i.e. just the cost of the fuel etc) on the off-chance that the punter might come back and do some more flying with an instructor. Incidentally, we DO meet the 'not-for-profit' requirements in our Articles.

It isn't clear (to me) whether or not 'Introductory Flights' conducted by an Instructor have to meet this 'marginal cost' requirement. We try to treat every flight as if the participant is trying out the activity to see if they would like to do more (which is what I as an instructor really want) but of course it doesn't suit everybody. We allow an observer in the back of our C172, but we don't charge anything more for this. In the case of a 14 year old lad I took this week, I was pleased his mum came along. What do the rest of you do about a 14 year-old in a C152?

TheOddOne

[MrAverage]

Methinks it raises more questions than it answers...........

[MrAverage]

The IN that is.

We don't encourage trial lessons for the under fifteens.

[MrAverage]

TheOddOne

I think this has come about because of what happens in France. An Introductory Flight will not contain any training element, the member of the public up front will not (or at least should not) handle the controls.

Trial lessons carried out by instructors will not change, since they are training flights (during which the prospective student definitely should handle the controls) that count towards licence issue, they are not introductory flights.

[Level Attitude]

Methinks it raises more questions than it answers........... I think this has come about because of what happens in FranceAnd in Germany.

I note that all, bar Piper Classique, posters on this Thread are UK based where this has not previously been allowed - It will need time to 'bed in'.

It isn't clear (to me) whether or not 'Introductory Flights' conducted by an Instructor have to meet this 'marginal cost' requirement.... .....at marginal cost (i.e. just the cost of the fuel etc)A Trial Lesson conducted by an Instructor (with a student who logs PUT) is different to an Introductory Flight (with a Pax who Logs nothing) no matter what the qualifications/ratings of the PIC.

If, for example, a one hour lesson costs £150 and one hour of solo hire costs £120 then, as aircraft rental is allowed, charging £120 for an Introductory Flight would seem, to me, to be reasonable (as that is the direct cost of that particular flight). The Pilot, again irrespective of qualifications, would not be able to charge/be paid anything.

An old AIC (so unsure if now superseded by EASA) stated that if the only payment made for a flight was for the services of a pilot then that flight would be deemed to be a private flight - In this case it would not be the only payment - so an AoC would be necessary.

It is emphasised that this can only be undertaken by an ATO or Flying Club but I would worry that some individual pilots, would use this to charge the whole cost of their flying to their passengers.

Unless I missed it, I am surprised that a minimum Medical requirement is not stated for the PIC of such flights. I am assuming that assessing the experience/competence, and hence suitability, of the pilot is left to the discretion of the ATO/Flying Club

[MarcK]

We don't encourage trial lessons for the under fifteens.
Don't you have anything like EAA's Young Eagles (https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-education-and-resources/eaa-youth-education/eaa-young-eagles-program)?

[foxmoth]

What do the rest of you do about a 14 year-old in a C152?

We don't encourage trial lessons for the under fifteens.

Well the Air Cadets seemed to manage ok with us in Chippies when I was 13!

[Mach Jump]

Call me Mr Cynical if you like, but could this be something to do with the CAA presence at AeroExpo this weekend, and the need for some good news they can point at.

Having said that, perhaps we shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth, and hope that it's just the beginning of an avalanche of deregulation!


MJ:ok:

[Whopity]

I think the new IN is simply a revision of the cost sharing process; it in no way changes the format of a lesson often referred to as a trial lesson, that can only be conducted by an instructor. It does open another gateway to abuse by the unscrupulus as we shall no doubt see.

Perhaps someone should ask them at AeroExpo when they are going to get off their backsides and reissue the Template Manual and the FE Habndbook, both of which are now 2 months late! And give correct answers to more questions in a timely manner!

[dobbin1]

It opens the way for some schools (or other organisation as defined in the IN) to offer "experience" flights at a lower cost that a proper trial lesson. The problem is that some people will not know the difference between a joy ride with a PPL and a trial lesson with an Instructor and simply go for the cheapest. The market for trial lessons could be seriously damaged and the consequences for ATOs already managing on razor thin margins could be severe.

I suspect that PPLs who do this will let their passengers handle the controls, not just fly them around. The IN does not specifically prohibit this. I see some safety issues around this, especially with aerobatics.

[fhl206]

Apologies for the mild drift, but did anyone notice the bit about advertising, and unequal sharing of costs in section 3.1 of the CAA information notice?

My interpretation is that advertising a flight outside of a club environment for cost-sharing purposes is now allowed, and that the passengers can pay for ALL direct costs?! I.e. PIC gets a free flight/hour building.

[Flugplatz]

All changed now: IN-2014/093: Cost-Sharing, Sailplane Towing, Parachute Dropping, Flying Competitions and Introductory Flights by Private Pilots | Publications | About the CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=6254)

CAA now allowing paid intro flights by PPLs (doesn't even have to be at an ATO!), cost sharing that does not have to have equal amounts and these can be advertised!!

New ways for new days :D

[dobbin1]

This IN http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/InformationNotice2014093.pdf clearly states that the requirement for equal cost sharing is removed.

I can see a can full of worms emerging from this one.

[Dysonsphere]

Well I was bought an air experance flight in a Tiger Moth (DJ now sadly crashed with 2 dead RIP) and was allowed to handle stick as had previous experance(a long time before) and went on to get a PPL so the idea works.