Training on private aircraft

[foxmoth]

Someone wants to train on their own aircraft, about the only thing I can find is that they can do this, presumably it needs to be through a DTO/ATO but does the school involved need the aircraft adding to their fleet or can you just go ahead?

[Whopity]

I believe its down to the HoT to accept it.

[MrAverage]

It will also need to be suitably insured for basic training, which of course includes solo, so needs to also cover any instructors involved and the eventual examiner for the LST.

[Fl1ingfrog]

To add one more thing. Your aircraft will need to have a Release to Service issued by your engineers. This will mean that only a Licensed engineer may maintain the aircraft - no owner maintenance allowed. You may need to appoint a Continued Airworthiness Maintenance Organization (CAMO),some maintenance organizations are also a CAMO. The CAMO issues a Airworthiness Review Certificate (ARC) filed with the CAA. The ARC is reviewed annually by the CAMO and updated with the CAA. All this will need to be kept in place whilst your aircraft is used for training.

[foxmoth]

To add one more thing. Your aircraft will need to have a Release to Service issued by your engineers. This will mean that only a Licensed engineer may maintain the aircraft - no owner maintenance allowed. You may need to appoint a Continued Airworthiness Maintenance Organization (CAMO),some maintenance organizations are also a CAMO. The CAMO issues a Airworthiness Review Certificate (ARC) filed with the CAA. The ARC is reviewed annually by the CAMO and updated with the CAA. All this will need to be kept in place whilst your aircraft is used for training.

can you point to any documentation that confirms this, as learning on your own permit aircraft is considered “non commercial” my understanding this is not required.?

[Whopity]

You didn't mention in the original post that it is a Permit Aircraft. This is covered by ORS4-1393
Use of National Permit to Fly Aircraft for Flight Instruction and Self-Fly Hire
4) The specified conditions are: a) The pilot must already hold a pilot’s licence in the same aircraft category.

[ASRAAMTOO]

The original exemption for use of permit aircraft was ORS4 1143 which allowed owners, part owners and their families to learn to fly in permit aircraft they did NOT have to already hold a licence. This ORS was withdrawn in Aug 2016 when the scope for permit aircraft was widened to allow all almost all but ab initio training to take place on permit aircraft. The intent though is STILL that owners, part owners and their families can learn to fly on permit aircraft.

This is what the CAA site says:

This permission does not apply to flight instruction and examination where the recipient does not hold a licence, except when the recipient is:

The registered owner or joint-owner, or
A registered shareholder of the company of which owns the aircraft, or
Is the spouse or child of a registered sole or joint owner.

[foxmoth]

You didn't mention in the original post that it is a Permit Aircraft. This is covered by ORS4-1393

from the same ORS in the explanatory notes
Ab Initio training is not permitted under this permission. However, Flight instruction and examination utilising non-certificated aircraft, where the recipient does not hold a licence, is already permitted when the recipient is:
i) the registered owner or joint-owner, or
ii) a registered shareholder of the company of which owns the aircraft, or
iii) the spouse or child of a registered sole or joint owner.
(Under the ANO 2016, Permit aircraft can be used for training by those above, as this is considered to be a non-commercial operation. Commercial operations being defined in Article 7. When payments are made by the owner or part-owner of the aircraft (for example to an instructor) it is regarded that they remain non-commercial.)


so you CAN do ab initio if the aircraft is owned, and as said, as regarded as non commercial I don’t see that you need the maintenance regime fl1ngFrog stated but still not sure if it needs to be on a DTO?

[Whopity]

Should have read on.
It must be a DTO for licence training or an ATO unless its a NPPL

[foxmoth]

Should have read on.
It must be a DTO for licence training or an ATO unless its a NPPL

thanks, but if you read my original post I realised that bit, the question was if the aircraft actually needs adding to the DTO/ATO list of aircraft?

[Whopity]

The HoT can approve it but interestingly the CAA required DTOs to register all aircraft wheras Part DTO only requires generic types. Either way the HoT will tell you what they require which will encompass some of the other points raised.

[Edgington]

thanks, but if you read my original post I realised that bit, the question was if the aircraft actually needs adding to the DTO/ATO list of aircraft?

All the DTO needs to do is add the aircraft to the yearly review they have to send to the CAA.

[Fl1ingfrog]

The formalisation of the ATO/DTOs has put an unambiguous responsibility onto them.

As an instructor I have flown in a lot of pilot maintained aircraft. Some have been maintained and kept to the highest standard, perhaps well above any statutory regulations that are demanded. At the other extreme are those that I would not fly. It isn't uncommon for instance to come across a lack of maintenance of things such as the aircraft instruments: "I don't bother with the ASI or the altimeter, they haven't worked for a long time, the GPS tells me all that I need to know". How then can an instructor teach the correct use of the flight instruments if they do not work or are not there?

The ATO/DTO has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its students, even from themselves. The school is obviously responsible for the efficacy of the training. Once employed by the school, even on a casual basis, then the school has a 100% responsible for the safety of the aeroplane. The only way an ATO/DTO can be certain of the aircraft safety is certification by a licenced engineer. The school should therefore hold all the mandatory paperwork including the logbooks during the training and ensure that they are in full compliance throughout the time used by the school.

All the DTO needs to do is add the aircraft to the yearly review they have to send to the CAA.

That is a ridiculous thing to say. Compliance does not come about on one day a year.

[Klimax]

The formalisation of the ATO/DTOs has put an unambiguous responsibility onto them.

As an instructor I have flown in a lot of pilot maintained aircraft. Some have been maintained and kept to the highest standard, perhaps well above any statutory regulations that are demanded. At the other extreme are those that I would not fly. It isn't uncommon for instance to come across a lack of maintenance of things such as the aircraft instruments: "I don't bother with the ASI or the altimeter, they haven't worked for a long time, the GPS tells me all that I need to know". How then can an instructor teach the correct use of the flight instruments if they do not work or are not there?

The ATO/DTO has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its students, even from themselves. The school is obviously responsible for the efficacy of the training. Once employed by the school, even on a casual basis, then the school has a 100% responsible for the safety of the aeroplane. The only way an ATO/DTO can be certain of the aircraft safety is certification by a licenced engineer. The school should therefore hold all the mandatory paperwork including the logbooks during the training and ensure that they are in full compliance throughout the time used by the school.



That is a ridiculous thing to say. Compliance does not come about on one day a year.

Yes, because as we all know, you can always trust an ATO, their maintenance organization and the licensed engineer that certifies the aircraft - all safety met. Come on. In reality most privately owned aircraft are probably in a better shape, from an aircraft safety point of view, than those being abused at some ATOs. The whole ATO and CAMO setup is only as good as it's actually being complied with - it doesn't necessarily mean aircraft safety is raised above that of a private airplane, with a qualified instructor, and an approved DTO. If everything was perfect and followed as per the intention of the regulator - great, but let's not fool ourselves.

[Edgington]

That is a ridiculous thing to say. Compliance does not come about on one day a year.

That's not what I meant, as said previously the HoT decides if it complies with the applicable regulations, if it's suitable for training. But once they have done that all you need to do is put the airplane on the initial declaration of the DTO or list it as one of the airplanes used as part of your annual review. You do not need to inform the CAA before using the aircraft.