Non-instructor Trial flights
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Biggleswade
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aerobatic Instruction:
It's an interesting anomalie, one of many in our licensing system. As there is no aerobatic raing, there is no rating to each it, therefore the CAA use the 'no aerobatic instruction' limitation route. Which means that any FI can teach aerobatics, provided they are not renumerated for it - if they receive payment, they must have the restriction removed. This is unacceptable and unsafe in my opinion, but that's the way it is!
On another subject, there are routes to renumerated check flying without the appropriate rating, but to do so, it is essential to have the CAA on board and have an appropiate exemption issued. However, the CAA will not issue an exemption if the work could be carried out by an existing AOC holder, or qualified FI, say.
e.g. - a non-related exmple: if an aerial phot was required from. say, a C152, there are enough public transport C152 operators to do the job via there AOC organisations. On the other hand, if the picture needed a Miles Magister wing in the foreground, then a Miles Magister owner could apply for permission to carry out a renumerated flight in his aircraft. There are other examples of renumerated flying and training done in a similar way on permit aicraft, by non-FI's and non-commercial pilots.
However, non of this exonerates the actions of the 'Club' that started this thread. What they are doing is wrong, illegal and irresponsible.
A
It's an interesting anomalie, one of many in our licensing system. As there is no aerobatic raing, there is no rating to each it, therefore the CAA use the 'no aerobatic instruction' limitation route. Which means that any FI can teach aerobatics, provided they are not renumerated for it - if they receive payment, they must have the restriction removed. This is unacceptable and unsafe in my opinion, but that's the way it is!
On another subject, there are routes to renumerated check flying without the appropriate rating, but to do so, it is essential to have the CAA on board and have an appropiate exemption issued. However, the CAA will not issue an exemption if the work could be carried out by an existing AOC holder, or qualified FI, say.
e.g. - a non-related exmple: if an aerial phot was required from. say, a C152, there are enough public transport C152 operators to do the job via there AOC organisations. On the other hand, if the picture needed a Miles Magister wing in the foreground, then a Miles Magister owner could apply for permission to carry out a renumerated flight in his aircraft. There are other examples of renumerated flying and training done in a similar way on permit aicraft, by non-FI's and non-commercial pilots.
However, non of this exonerates the actions of the 'Club' that started this thread. What they are doing is wrong, illegal and irresponsible.
A
I can understand that private owner groups may have their own agreements concerning mutual flying, but that's a whole different kettle of fish to a PPL holder carrying out a 'currency' check on another club member.
What does your so-called 28-day currency check ride consist of? One pilot demonstrating competency to another? If so, what criteria does the 'check pilot' use to assess this competency if he is not a trained FI? If Clubs want to make up their own rules concerning recency, then the requirement for a pilot out of 'Club recency' to be 'checked' means that he can only be checked by someone trained to assess flying standards. Otherwise it's totally meaningless. Hence I contend that your 'check rides' may only be conducted by a CRI or FI - not just by a 'nominated PPL holder' with no formal qualification. Even the PFA has had to accept that its 'coaches' must now be formally qualified CRIs.
Let's say pilot A wants to hire an ac from a Club. He arrives and is told that he cannot fly unless he takes pilot B (a non-CRI/FI PPL holder) with him. It is, therefore, a condition of the flight that pilot B flies. But in what capacity? What happens if he doesn't like something pilot A (the Commander) does? He is only a passenger and cannot dictate any part of the flight to pilot A. If they agree to share the flying, then each must pay 50% of the hire fee; if pilot B does not pay for his fraction of the flight cost, then he is receiving 'payment in kind' - free flying. That is illegal.
Incidentally, MJ, there is no such thing as CAAFU - and hasn't been for many years.
Airbedane - the 'No aerobatics' limitation does not refer merely to remunerated flight instruction, it refers to any aerobatic instruction. One is a condition of the rating, the other is a licence privilege. So no, a FI with the 'No aerobatics' restriction may not teach aerobatics.
As you rightly say, there are indeed a number of 'special condition' flights for which permission may be sought from the CAA; they will assess the application and agree the relevant conditions. Which is entirely as it should be!
What does your so-called 28-day currency check ride consist of? One pilot demonstrating competency to another? If so, what criteria does the 'check pilot' use to assess this competency if he is not a trained FI? If Clubs want to make up their own rules concerning recency, then the requirement for a pilot out of 'Club recency' to be 'checked' means that he can only be checked by someone trained to assess flying standards. Otherwise it's totally meaningless. Hence I contend that your 'check rides' may only be conducted by a CRI or FI - not just by a 'nominated PPL holder' with no formal qualification. Even the PFA has had to accept that its 'coaches' must now be formally qualified CRIs.
Let's say pilot A wants to hire an ac from a Club. He arrives and is told that he cannot fly unless he takes pilot B (a non-CRI/FI PPL holder) with him. It is, therefore, a condition of the flight that pilot B flies. But in what capacity? What happens if he doesn't like something pilot A (the Commander) does? He is only a passenger and cannot dictate any part of the flight to pilot A. If they agree to share the flying, then each must pay 50% of the hire fee; if pilot B does not pay for his fraction of the flight cost, then he is receiving 'payment in kind' - free flying. That is illegal.
Incidentally, MJ, there is no such thing as CAAFU - and hasn't been for many years.
Airbedane - the 'No aerobatics' limitation does not refer merely to remunerated flight instruction, it refers to any aerobatic instruction. One is a condition of the rating, the other is a licence privilege. So no, a FI with the 'No aerobatics' restriction may not teach aerobatics.
As you rightly say, there are indeed a number of 'special condition' flights for which permission may be sought from the CAA; they will assess the application and agree the relevant conditions. Which is entirely as it should be!
Last edited by BEagle; 19th Jan 2004 at 14:46.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The check flights I have seen using a PPL are only paper exercises if someone has gone out of the club rules not the CAA ones
As for the legalities, if an "office member" who is employed by the club is asked, as part of his responsibilities during his working hours, to fly, surely he would need at the very least a CPL?
FFF
---------------
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what training in the FI course is there for a 225(hr) restricted Instructor to pass fail someones flying, none. There is so much variation within the UK of what is acceptable and what isn't. And the more experenced the instructor the lower the standard needs to be. Personally I would have liked a demo of what acceptable and what isn't, I will freely admit that in the early days I was way to harsh. Before starting to teach I think I was in a plane for 2 landings made by low hour PPL's I didn't have a clue what was normal. I only knew what i would be happy with or not (which was higher standard than your average PPL) . Have to watch we don't get sidelined into the 1 hour with an instructor debate again.
You might not like it, but i should imagine that over 50% of the clubs in the UK have this practise. It is legal, it is done.
And in your example Pilot A logs it as PIC pilot B dosn't. Because they are inside te 90day rule so legal to be PIC pilot B It is only there because the CFI requires it, his/her rules he/she gets to choose who does the check.
As for the great CAAFU debate, the gentelmen in question introduce themselves as CAAFU, and it is generally accepted if you say CAAFU it is the gods who do first time IR's. A bit like the rest of the UK using QFI to mean unrestricted instructor much to the ex mil peoples annoyance.
MJ
You might not like it, but i should imagine that over 50% of the clubs in the UK have this practise. It is legal, it is done.
And in your example Pilot A logs it as PIC pilot B dosn't. Because they are inside te 90day rule so legal to be PIC pilot B It is only there because the CFI requires it, his/her rules he/she gets to choose who does the check.
As for the great CAAFU debate, the gentelmen in question introduce themselves as CAAFU, and it is generally accepted if you say CAAFU it is the gods who do first time IR's. A bit like the rest of the UK using QFI to mean unrestricted instructor much to the ex mil peoples annoyance.
MJ
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no need to cost share as the pilot do the 'checking' is acting as a passenger, NOT as another pilot.
I have to agree again with M_J, what training do FI's get as examiners? None, yet we are asked to perform this duty on a regular basis. (insert standard arguement about the one hour revalidation flight.) As you get more experienced then you understand what is and isn't acceptable, but at first you are left to blindly feel your way.
Personally my standards in respect to certain things are very harsh, far more than other FI's in the club, but in turn they have other areas that they believe are more important.
Who's correct? I will argue black and blue for my points and they will do the same.
Beagle I would love to instruct in your world where everything is black and white, but in most clubs this is not the case. Since we get no real direction from any source, we all seem to do things differently and interpret the 'rules' in different ways. (for example I disagree with your use of PICUS rather than P/UT, my interpretation is the opposite.)
How do you define aerobatic instruction? In fact how do you define instruction at all? Training for the issue of a licence. As there is no aerobatic 'licence' as such what are you teaching it for? I would hate to see anybody doing aeros when they are not in current practice, and since most newly minted 200Hr FI's have probably never done more than an hour of aeros', then they should in no way be attempting manouevers or routines especially with a student on board.
How can you then justify teaching full spins, when there is now no requirement to do so? Could this not be counted as aerobatic? Wingovers, Lazy 8's, Loops or Rolls. The arguement could be that you are demonstrating the capabilities of the a/c to help breed some confidence in the machine.
I am an aero's instructor and find this very useful on occasion through the PPL course not just when going through the AOPA certificate course.
I have to agree again with M_J, what training do FI's get as examiners? None, yet we are asked to perform this duty on a regular basis. (insert standard arguement about the one hour revalidation flight.) As you get more experienced then you understand what is and isn't acceptable, but at first you are left to blindly feel your way.
Personally my standards in respect to certain things are very harsh, far more than other FI's in the club, but in turn they have other areas that they believe are more important.
Who's correct? I will argue black and blue for my points and they will do the same.
Beagle I would love to instruct in your world where everything is black and white, but in most clubs this is not the case. Since we get no real direction from any source, we all seem to do things differently and interpret the 'rules' in different ways. (for example I disagree with your use of PICUS rather than P/UT, my interpretation is the opposite.)
How do you define aerobatic instruction? In fact how do you define instruction at all? Training for the issue of a licence. As there is no aerobatic 'licence' as such what are you teaching it for? I would hate to see anybody doing aeros when they are not in current practice, and since most newly minted 200Hr FI's have probably never done more than an hour of aeros', then they should in no way be attempting manouevers or routines especially with a student on board.
How can you then justify teaching full spins, when there is now no requirement to do so? Could this not be counted as aerobatic? Wingovers, Lazy 8's, Loops or Rolls. The arguement could be that you are demonstrating the capabilities of the a/c to help breed some confidence in the machine.
I am an aero's instructor and find this very useful on occasion through the PPL course not just when going through the AOPA certificate course.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: U.K
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies.
Despite attempts to persuade me otherwise, I admit that I had an inkling that these trial flights were illegal.
My intention was to find out how normal / widespread / acceptable that this practice was. I am still of the opinion that this sort of thing must happen at alot more schools than appears to be the case on here so far.
My first objection to the situation is a financial one. Our instructors are losing out on pay and flight time. Trial flights are paid for in advance and if there is no legitimate instructor available then they should be postponed, as they do due to the british weather. If these flights are carried out by the salaried desk staff, the school saves Ł15 per flight. If an instructor is told not to come in to work then they save an extra Ł10 per day.
Whilst most trial flights are a birthday present for little jonny, they are Exercise 3 of the training syllabus and must therefore be carried out by an instructor. This bit is clear cut.
As for new member check outs, PPL currency checks, differences training, aerobatics training and type conversions e.t.c. This is probably more of a grey area. I admit that I am not certain of the exact regulations and it appears from other posts that it is wholly dependent on the club in question.
I have a feeling that club rules and pilot order books everywhere have received little updating over the years and might need reviewing to make sure they conform with current regulations.
I have of course raised the issue of these flights at the school and have been met with responses from complete apathy to "I didn't know they weren't an instructor". I will push the issue further with the school (at a bit of a career risk !). I will not be pursuing the matter with anyone outside of the school. If there is no satisfactory conclusion, I will just walk away from the organisation with my feelings well known to all at the school.
Thanks again for your inputs and I really do hope this situation isn't as widespread as I first thought. I do not want to attract negative attention to the industry or the attention of the Belgrano (though a memo arriving on the door mat of all flying schools clarifying the situation and outlining consequences for non-compliance might be welcome !).
Despite attempts to persuade me otherwise, I admit that I had an inkling that these trial flights were illegal.
My intention was to find out how normal / widespread / acceptable that this practice was. I am still of the opinion that this sort of thing must happen at alot more schools than appears to be the case on here so far.
My first objection to the situation is a financial one. Our instructors are losing out on pay and flight time. Trial flights are paid for in advance and if there is no legitimate instructor available then they should be postponed, as they do due to the british weather. If these flights are carried out by the salaried desk staff, the school saves Ł15 per flight. If an instructor is told not to come in to work then they save an extra Ł10 per day.
Whilst most trial flights are a birthday present for little jonny, they are Exercise 3 of the training syllabus and must therefore be carried out by an instructor. This bit is clear cut.
As for new member check outs, PPL currency checks, differences training, aerobatics training and type conversions e.t.c. This is probably more of a grey area. I admit that I am not certain of the exact regulations and it appears from other posts that it is wholly dependent on the club in question.
I have a feeling that club rules and pilot order books everywhere have received little updating over the years and might need reviewing to make sure they conform with current regulations.
I have of course raised the issue of these flights at the school and have been met with responses from complete apathy to "I didn't know they weren't an instructor". I will push the issue further with the school (at a bit of a career risk !). I will not be pursuing the matter with anyone outside of the school. If there is no satisfactory conclusion, I will just walk away from the organisation with my feelings well known to all at the school.
Thanks again for your inputs and I really do hope this situation isn't as widespread as I first thought. I do not want to attract negative attention to the industry or the attention of the Belgrano (though a memo arriving on the door mat of all flying schools clarifying the situation and outlining consequences for non-compliance might be welcome !).
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vector if you walk away without doing anything about it, then shame on you. I congratulate you for trying to fix the problem internally, but if that fails then it is your duty to do the right thing. That is to inform SRG. This can be done confidentially and it will then be in their hands to 'fix' the problem.
We all rely on others professionalism, if you walk and then somebody is injured or even killed, then you will be responsible to a certain degree. By not 'squealing' then you are allowing this to happen. Does this sound like a professional attitude?
This sort of shoddy management deserves to be squashed and never allowed near aviation again. If you are not sure exactly what to do, then contact any of us here. I'm sure anyone would be willing to give some support, as this is never an easy thing to do.
Good luck, I'm sure you will do the right thing.
We all rely on others professionalism, if you walk and then somebody is injured or even killed, then you will be responsible to a certain degree. By not 'squealing' then you are allowing this to happen. Does this sound like a professional attitude?
This sort of shoddy management deserves to be squashed and never allowed near aviation again. If you are not sure exactly what to do, then contact any of us here. I'm sure anyone would be willing to give some support, as this is never an easy thing to do.
Good luck, I'm sure you will do the right thing.
Are you really saying that you received no instruction on student fault analysis during your FI courses? I find that very hard to believe.
My example of cost sharing was based on shared flying, not flying as a passenger. The CFI cannot decide which non-CRI/FI PPL pilot can conduct these 28 day flights no matter how dictatorial he wishes to be.
Quite simple - any additional Club recency requirements must be conducted by a CRI at the very least. Not merely by some unqualified PPL holder who happens to be thought of in high esteem by the CFI.
For example, we have a 42 day recency rule and an annual Club check rule. But those outside 42 day recency or needing to fly an annual Club check may only operate the ac with a FI acting as Commander.
I've discussed with others and they are equally adamant that the use of unqualified PPL holders as 'check pilots' is wholly unacceptable except within the agreed procedures of a private owner group.
My example of cost sharing was based on shared flying, not flying as a passenger. The CFI cannot decide which non-CRI/FI PPL pilot can conduct these 28 day flights no matter how dictatorial he wishes to be.
Quite simple - any additional Club recency requirements must be conducted by a CRI at the very least. Not merely by some unqualified PPL holder who happens to be thought of in high esteem by the CFI.
For example, we have a 42 day recency rule and an annual Club check rule. But those outside 42 day recency or needing to fly an annual Club check may only operate the ac with a FI acting as Commander.
I've discussed with others and they are equally adamant that the use of unqualified PPL holders as 'check pilots' is wholly unacceptable except within the agreed procedures of a private owner group.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
With all due respect, you are not being logical.
Instructing has rules and regulations made by the CAA, and we're all agreed about the original question on this thread.
Club check-outs are a different matter. They are the concern of the club, school, aircraft owner, and/or insurance company. They concern a pilot who can legally fly, as far as the CAA is concerned! Therefore, whatever makes the club, insurance company etc happy is OK. If not, then why not?
Now consider the pilot doing the check-out. He/she is a passenger, no more or less. If I personally ask a friend to come flying with me as a safety pilot because I'm a bit rusty, and so that he/she can keep an eye on what I do, that person is a passenger. They aren't paid, they don't log it, and they aren't getting any flying, free or otherwise. They might tell me to keep my airspeed up, or similar, or even suggest I go out with an instructor, but that's all. I do this regularly, since as a helicopter pilot my f/w flying is frequently a bit rusty. Now, if the club etc privately trusts this person enough to let a pilot fly their aircraft on his say-so, that is a purely internal matter. The CAA would have been happy to let the pilot fly in the first place!!!
Perhaps the term "check-out" is causing the problem. Because while I respect your opinions and value your experience usually, BEagle, I really cannot for the life of me see why you have a problem with this!!! Legally, that is. If you have a problem personally - well, that's another matter, and you're quite entitled to your opinion. But I don't see any way that it can be considered illegal.
With all due respect, you are not being logical.
Instructing has rules and regulations made by the CAA, and we're all agreed about the original question on this thread.
Club check-outs are a different matter. They are the concern of the club, school, aircraft owner, and/or insurance company. They concern a pilot who can legally fly, as far as the CAA is concerned! Therefore, whatever makes the club, insurance company etc happy is OK. If not, then why not?
Now consider the pilot doing the check-out. He/she is a passenger, no more or less. If I personally ask a friend to come flying with me as a safety pilot because I'm a bit rusty, and so that he/she can keep an eye on what I do, that person is a passenger. They aren't paid, they don't log it, and they aren't getting any flying, free or otherwise. They might tell me to keep my airspeed up, or similar, or even suggest I go out with an instructor, but that's all. I do this regularly, since as a helicopter pilot my f/w flying is frequently a bit rusty. Now, if the club etc privately trusts this person enough to let a pilot fly their aircraft on his say-so, that is a purely internal matter. The CAA would have been happy to let the pilot fly in the first place!!!
Perhaps the term "check-out" is causing the problem. Because while I respect your opinions and value your experience usually, BEagle, I really cannot for the life of me see why you have a problem with this!!! Legally, that is. If you have a problem personally - well, that's another matter, and you're quite entitled to your opinion. But I don't see any way that it can be considered illegal.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirly,
I agree with your argument.... except on one point. If you personally ask a friend to go flying with you because you're a bit rusty, that's a private flight. But that's not what we're talking about here. We are talking about an employee of the club being asked, as part of his job, to go flying. Surely that's illegal unless the person in question has a CPL?
FFF
-----------
I agree with your argument.... except on one point. If you personally ask a friend to go flying with you because you're a bit rusty, that's a private flight. But that's not what we're talking about here. We are talking about an employee of the club being asked, as part of his job, to go flying. Surely that's illegal unless the person in question has a CPL?
FFF
-----------
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, fault analysis is one thing, but knowing what the acceptable standard in all areas of flight is totally different. FI's are not examiners and have to rely on their own standards as to what is acceptable. Yes it is laid down in respect to test standards, but nothing prepares you for flying with all ready qualified pilots who may or may not be totally competent. You have to rely on your own judgement, which is fine if you are experienced, but just like M_J when started instructing, the only experience I had was from a commercial school. I soon found that my standards were not feasible with people who flew on a very limited basis.
FFF, If you get paid/renumerated in any way for a flight then you should hold either BCPL, CPL or an instructor rating (in Heli's).
If the person does not log the flight, then they are not getting any benefit, therefore as long as you are within the statutory minimums of currency, then you don't have to have an FI sitting next to you.
Whirly has it right in my mind when she says that maybe the term 'checkout' is causing the problems. It is not a check, BEagle is quite right when he states that only an FI should conduct this, but having a safety pilot 'just in case.'
Whilst I think that this is highly dangerous, it is not against any rules that I am aware of. The captain/commander of any flight must be obvious, easy with an FI on board as it is always you, but to have two similarily qualified and experienced pilots on board is a recipe for disaster in the event of any emergency.
FFF, If you get paid/renumerated in any way for a flight then you should hold either BCPL, CPL or an instructor rating (in Heli's).
If the person does not log the flight, then they are not getting any benefit, therefore as long as you are within the statutory minimums of currency, then you don't have to have an FI sitting next to you.
Whirly has it right in my mind when she says that maybe the term 'checkout' is causing the problems. It is not a check, BEagle is quite right when he states that only an FI should conduct this, but having a safety pilot 'just in case.'
Whilst I think that this is highly dangerous, it is not against any rules that I am aware of. The captain/commander of any flight must be obvious, easy with an FI on board as it is always you, but to have two similarily qualified and experienced pilots on board is a recipe for disaster in the event of any emergency.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF,
The flying club employee is being asked to be a PASSENGER with a qualified pilot doing the flying. The employee is then being asked his opinion of that person's flying. Now, you, BEagle, SAS, the CAA, or anyone else, may not think this is a particularly good idea. But I can't see how it can be ILLEGAL.
Personally, if my flying is a bit rusty I like someone else there, since two heads are better than one. Not two sets of hands and feet - as SAS says, that's not a good idea - just two heads. Someone to remind me of things if all doesn't go according to plan and I get a bit over-loaded. In my albeit fairly limited experience, what usually happens under such conditions is that I'm a bit behind the aircraft, and tend to forget things like radio calls. Having another pilot to monitor things can make all the difference needed.
The flying club employee is being asked to be a PASSENGER with a qualified pilot doing the flying. The employee is then being asked his opinion of that person's flying. Now, you, BEagle, SAS, the CAA, or anyone else, may not think this is a particularly good idea. But I can't see how it can be ILLEGAL.
Personally, if my flying is a bit rusty I like someone else there, since two heads are better than one. Not two sets of hands and feet - as SAS says, that's not a good idea - just two heads. Someone to remind me of things if all doesn't go according to plan and I get a bit over-loaded. In my albeit fairly limited experience, what usually happens under such conditions is that I'm a bit behind the aircraft, and tend to forget things like radio calls. Having another pilot to monitor things can make all the difference needed.
It is illegal if it is a condition of a private flight that a particular passenger must be carried. Thus "Would you mind taking Fred with you" is fine, but "You must take Joe with you" is clearly not. Which would appear to be the case here.
In which case whichever club official decided upon this policy is complicit in facilitating an illegal public transport activity. The insurer's position is nihil ad rem .
Face it - there are sufficient properly qualified flight instructors around to meet any conceivable club recency requirement. Whether the club is prepared to provide sufficient properly qualified people to support its self-imposed requirements is clearly another matter with clear commercial considerations.
In other words, do it properly or don't do it at all!
Face it - there are sufficient properly qualified flight instructors around to meet any conceivable club recency requirement. Whether the club is prepared to provide sufficient properly qualified people to support its self-imposed requirements is clearly another matter with clear commercial considerations.
In other words, do it properly or don't do it at all!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as a club official being ‘complicit in facilitating an illegal public transport activity’, I don’t get your point. If said club official decides that those are the rules for the club, then those are the rules. If you don’t like the rules, find a club that doesn’t have them.
Quote:
‘ I can understand that private owner groups may have their own agreements concerning mutual flying, but that's a whole different kettle of fish to a PPL holder carrying out a 'currency' check on another club member’ - How is this any different to the issue here? – ‘In other words, do it properly or don't do it at all!’ ??
As regards the insurers position being nothing to the point, I would be interested to know if clubs do have an agreement for ‘currency’ tied to the policy.
I personally agree with you that instructors should be used, but find your argument that the policy is illegal lacking.
Quote:
‘ I can understand that private owner groups may have their own agreements concerning mutual flying, but that's a whole different kettle of fish to a PPL holder carrying out a 'currency' check on another club member’ - How is this any different to the issue here? – ‘In other words, do it properly or don't do it at all!’ ??
As regards the insurers position being nothing to the point, I would be interested to know if clubs do have an agreement for ‘currency’ tied to the policy.
I personally agree with you that instructors should be used, but find your argument that the policy is illegal lacking.
It is illegal if it is a condition of a private flight that a particular passenger must be carried.
But it would be illegal if the check-pilot were paid to conduct the check. That doesn't mean that they have to be paid by the hour -- most commercial pilots aren't! If checking out other pilots were part of the job description of the employee of a flying club, I think that would make it aerial work, for which a CPL would be required.
The captain/commander of any flight must be obvious, easy with an FI on board as it is always you, but to have two similarily qualified and experienced pilots on board is a recipe for disaster in the event of any emergency.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I will not be pursuing the matter with anyone outside of the school.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The discussion with BEagle about PPL's checking each other for non manditory (under ANO regs) club checks which are imposed by the CFI as a condition of renting an aircraft from its owner. Conducted without payment (apart from solo hire), by 2 people. Which can be waivered by the CFI if he chooses ( I didn't have a check ride after not flying a SEP for 100days but when I went up I was solo so it was legal and I was insured) is diluting the main issue here.
The taking of Ex 3's by PPL's is not under discussion. It is definatly illegal and has the potential to ruin alot of lives and may be also have some pretty horrible effects for the industry as a whole.
CHIRP it or whatever. Just get it stopped. I know it is hard at this stage in your career but unfortunatly its one of these things that needs something done.
Just remember in a few months time you may meet someones mother walking down the road with a bunch of flowers, she bought her kid a trial flight for his 16th birthday. Kid never made 17...... True he is more likely to be run over but you can't do anything to stop that. You can stop an unqualified pilot commit fraud by gaining the trust of a member of the public by prentending to be a commercial pilot who is qualified as an instrucor.
MJ
And BEagle no i didn't get any training or any ground school in what the required standards are. And after discussing it at work today with others that hold or have held an instructors rating they wern't either. In fact none of us had even been sat down by the CFI during the restricted period.
The taking of Ex 3's by PPL's is not under discussion. It is definatly illegal and has the potential to ruin alot of lives and may be also have some pretty horrible effects for the industry as a whole.
CHIRP it or whatever. Just get it stopped. I know it is hard at this stage in your career but unfortunatly its one of these things that needs something done.
Just remember in a few months time you may meet someones mother walking down the road with a bunch of flowers, she bought her kid a trial flight for his 16th birthday. Kid never made 17...... True he is more likely to be run over but you can't do anything to stop that. You can stop an unqualified pilot commit fraud by gaining the trust of a member of the public by prentending to be a commercial pilot who is qualified as an instrucor.
MJ
And BEagle no i didn't get any training or any ground school in what the required standards are. And after discussing it at work today with others that hold or have held an instructors rating they wern't either. In fact none of us had even been sat down by the CFI during the restricted period.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is illegal if it is a condition of a private flight that a particular passenger must be carried. Thus "Would you mind taking Fred with you" is fine, but "You must take Joe with you" is clearly not. Which would appear to be the case here
And if any of the above are illegal, could you please tell me where that rule is.