Non-instructor Trial flights
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: U.K
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Non-instructor Trial flights
My school has recently started to routinely use the desk staff to perform Trial flights. These people are good pilots, but are basic PPL's and have no form of commercial licence or instructors rating.
The school says that they are just keeping people flying when the instructors are busy. But they are telling instructors who are paid by the day and hour not to come in to work and letting the salaried desk staff perform the flying instead.
Is this normal practice with flying schools and is it legal ?
Having just spent £5k on an instructors rating I hope this isn't the norm !
The school says that they are just keeping people flying when the instructors are busy. But they are telling instructors who are paid by the day and hour not to come in to work and letting the salaried desk staff perform the flying instead.
Is this normal practice with flying schools and is it legal ?
Having just spent £5k on an instructors rating I hope this isn't the norm !
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: An oasis in the middle of the cultural desert.
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you give a trial lesson then there must be a qualified instructor giving the lesson.
If the trial flight does not involve the passenger manipulating the controls ie a pleasure flight, then the flying school would need to have an AOC as this would be a pleasure trip. As such if the pilot was being paid for doing the trip, even if his pay was as a desk clerk then he would need to hold the appropriate licence. That would be a CPL.
The only way a PPL can take passengers for pleasure is if he is paying for a proportion of the flight. If he has two passengers then he must pay one third of the price of the trip to stay legal.
If the school has no instructors available and no AOC then the aircraft should stay on the ground.
If I'm wrong then I've just wasted a shed load of money over the last three years getting a CPL/IR and instructor rating.
Please let me know!
If the trial flight does not involve the passenger manipulating the controls ie a pleasure flight, then the flying school would need to have an AOC as this would be a pleasure trip. As such if the pilot was being paid for doing the trip, even if his pay was as a desk clerk then he would need to hold the appropriate licence. That would be a CPL.
The only way a PPL can take passengers for pleasure is if he is paying for a proportion of the flight. If he has two passengers then he must pay one third of the price of the trip to stay legal.
If the school has no instructors available and no AOC then the aircraft should stay on the ground.
If I'm wrong then I've just wasted a shed load of money over the last three years getting a CPL/IR and instructor rating.
Please let me know!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not normal.
Not legal.
Not what you should put up with.
Make an MOR or CHIRP report.
If the school is cutting corners like that on flying, what corners are they cutting on maintenance?
I'd be looking for employment elsewhere ASAP.
Remember that most trial lessons are booked and paid for well in advance - Vouchers, promotions, red letter days, birthday present for dad etc. Thus the money is in the Bank. If there is no instructor available, then the customer/ student will come back another day because they have already paid.
One thing that will ensure they don't come back to your school for the rest of a PPL course is a poor trial lesson with someone who can't instruct.
Best of luck.
Regards,
DFC
Not legal.
Not what you should put up with.
Make an MOR or CHIRP report.
If the school is cutting corners like that on flying, what corners are they cutting on maintenance?
I'd be looking for employment elsewhere ASAP.
Remember that most trial lessons are booked and paid for well in advance - Vouchers, promotions, red letter days, birthday present for dad etc. Thus the money is in the Bank. If there is no instructor available, then the customer/ student will come back another day because they have already paid.
One thing that will ensure they don't come back to your school for the rest of a PPL course is a poor trial lesson with someone who can't instruct.
Best of luck.
Regards,
DFC
Vector victor, I hope that the school in question stops this illegal public transport activity before this thread attracts the attention of the CAA's Enforcement Branch.... As it surely will.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope that the school in question stops this illegal public transport activity before this thread attracts the attention of the CAA's Enforcement Branch.... As it surely will.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Jerez
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the "student" went on to do their PPL they would not be able to log the flight. Bad news for them.
If the student did log the flight, I'd love to know what they wrote under PIC...
Assuming the student logged the ops desk member as PIC, what would the CAA do if they inspected the logbooks of PPL applicants and found a PPL holder (without FI rating) in the PIC column? Do they check or just check the CFI's signature confirming the correctness of the entries?
Hmmm...
Assuming this school does these flights regularly do you think they would have any problem operating a trial lesson from an unlicensed aerodrome/runway?
I know of one school that does this. Is this acceptable or does it fall into the same category?
Food for thought.
If the student did log the flight, I'd love to know what they wrote under PIC...
Assuming the student logged the ops desk member as PIC, what would the CAA do if they inspected the logbooks of PPL applicants and found a PPL holder (without FI rating) in the PIC column? Do they check or just check the CFI's signature confirming the correctness of the entries?
Hmmm...
Assuming this school does these flights regularly do you think they would have any problem operating a trial lesson from an unlicensed aerodrome/runway?
I know of one school that does this. Is this acceptable or does it fall into the same category?
Food for thought.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mysteryshopper,
It would also be illegal to operate the trial lesson from an unlicensed airfield (unless for example it is a microlight).
As an industry, we need to ensure that operators like the one described are stopped ASAP. Otherwise we risk not having an industry at all.
Regards,
DFC
It would also be illegal to operate the trial lesson from an unlicensed airfield (unless for example it is a microlight).
As an industry, we need to ensure that operators like the one described are stopped ASAP. Otherwise we risk not having an industry at all.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
illegal trial flights
The consquences for a non instructor undertaking Trial Flights is very serious indeed.
The Trial flight or Air Experience Flight is a recognised lesson within the PPL syllabus. The effect on the non-instructor is for him/her to be construed as an individual masquerading as an Instructor.
It matters not whether the student/passenger touched the controls or not. It is fraud, dangerous and highly illegal and worse for the non-instructor unlawful.
The result for one individual not too many years ago was not a fine plus costs, but prison! It is that serious.
You would do well by the individuals concerned to at least make them AWARE of what they could be letting themselves in for.
The Trial flight or Air Experience Flight is a recognised lesson within the PPL syllabus. The effect on the non-instructor is for him/her to be construed as an individual masquerading as an Instructor.
It matters not whether the student/passenger touched the controls or not. It is fraud, dangerous and highly illegal and worse for the non-instructor unlawful.
The result for one individual not too many years ago was not a fine plus costs, but prison! It is that serious.
You would do well by the individuals concerned to at least make them AWARE of what they could be letting themselves in for.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have heard of some schools using trial flights as the 5 hours mutial for the FIC and thougt it dodgy as hell.
But PPL's taking EX3's up no way.
Give Beagle or any one here a PM and we will get it sorted through unoffical channels.
They are not insured, not licensed and if SRG foundout they would really throw the book at them. It is a complete abuse of there staff and customers. And to be honest i have heard the CAA is looking to make Trial flights subject to A to A AOC regulations anyway and are only waiting for the first crash to mandate it. This would screw most schools and does nobody any favours.
MJ
But PPL's taking EX3's up no way.
Give Beagle or any one here a PM and we will get it sorted through unoffical channels.
They are not insured, not licensed and if SRG foundout they would really throw the book at them. It is a complete abuse of there staff and customers. And to be honest i have heard the CAA is looking to make Trial flights subject to A to A AOC regulations anyway and are only waiting for the first crash to mandate it. This would screw most schools and does nobody any favours.
MJ
What type, helis or fixed wing
Are we talking about helicopters or aeroplanes???
There is also a well known helicopter company where an office members "checks" out students for their 30 day club check/rule with no instructor rating!!!
There is also a well known helicopter company where an office members "checks" out students for their 30 day club check/rule with no instructor rating!!!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
where an office members "checks" out students for their 30 day club check/rule with no instructor rating!!!
As mad jock points out if they are unbothered by the CAA then they should be terrified of their insurer.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPl's doing check rides is legal and they are also insured to do so.
The only probem that may occur is if the person being checked is outside the 90day rule. If the check is say a 28day check the pilot just logs it as PIC. If outside 90days the pilot doing the checking must be PIC otherwise they are breaking 90day rule. Because only one person can log the time and it can't be PICUS or PUT. And then they have to do 3 circuits solo. So its more effective to just do it with an instructor.
This is only really an issue with night checkouts.
Funny issue with the night stuff is that instructor student combinations are allowed while both are out on the 90day rule.
Apparantly Instructor, student are counted as crew not Instructor and pax.
Also to cover your arse its proberly best if there logbook is anotated that they have been checked out in the RHS.
The only probem that may occur is if the person being checked is outside the 90day rule. If the check is say a 28day check the pilot just logs it as PIC. If outside 90days the pilot doing the checking must be PIC otherwise they are breaking 90day rule. Because only one person can log the time and it can't be PICUS or PUT. And then they have to do 3 circuits solo. So its more effective to just do it with an instructor.
This is only really an issue with night checkouts.
Funny issue with the night stuff is that instructor student combinations are allowed while both are out on the 90day rule.
Apparantly Instructor, student are counted as crew not Instructor and pax.
Also to cover your arse its proberly best if there logbook is anotated that they have been checked out in the RHS.
Last edited by mad_jock; 18th Jan 2004 at 23:23.
What on earth sort of a 'check ride' can a non-FI PPL holder possibly give? He/she is only permitted to fly private flights or non-remunerated flight instruction if his/her licence also includes a FI rating.
I can accept the concept of someone briefing another pilot on the vagaries of a specific aircraft's foibles - but as for conducting 'recency checks', that's very dubious. The P1C should be a CRI at the very least, I would reason...
On another score, it seems that there is the odd place where 'aerobatic experience' trial lessons are being conducted by FIs who haven't had their 'no aerobatic instruction' restrictions removed. That's possibly acceptable if it's a 'pleasure flight' being conducted by an AOC-holding commercial organisation with properly licensed pilots - but with enthusiastic and unqualified FIs at a basic RF/FTO? Definitely not!
I can accept the concept of someone briefing another pilot on the vagaries of a specific aircraft's foibles - but as for conducting 'recency checks', that's very dubious. The P1C should be a CRI at the very least, I would reason...
On another score, it seems that there is the odd place where 'aerobatic experience' trial lessons are being conducted by FIs who haven't had their 'no aerobatic instruction' restrictions removed. That's possibly acceptable if it's a 'pleasure flight' being conducted by an AOC-holding commercial organisation with properly licensed pilots - but with enthusiastic and unqualified FIs at a basic RF/FTO? Definitely not!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Beagle,
You've confused me a little there.
Is it not legal for a FI without the aerobatic restriction removed to demonstrate an aerobatic manoeuvre to a student? I realise that he/she couldn't teach or sign anybody off for aerobatics, but I had thought that a demonstration would be within the rules.
BF
You've confused me a little there.
Is it not legal for a FI without the aerobatic restriction removed to demonstrate an aerobatic manoeuvre to a student? I realise that he/she couldn't teach or sign anybody off for aerobatics, but I had thought that a demonstration would be within the rules.
BF
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vector Victor, I hope you pass on the details of this school to either SRG or somebody here what is occuring is totally illegal and potentially lethal.
As for the instruction in aeros, as long as the FI is just demonstrating manouevers, then it is perfectly acceptable as long as they are competent, but if they are actually teaching, then I would argue that this is not acceptable. This does then get into the AOC issue.
M_J is correct in that a lot of clubs allow competent club members to conduct certain checks on other PPL's, but they cannot log it or get paid for it obviously. It is also done very regularily in private owner groups.
As for the instruction in aeros, as long as the FI is just demonstrating manouevers, then it is perfectly acceptable as long as they are competent, but if they are actually teaching, then I would argue that this is not acceptable. This does then get into the AOC issue.
M_J is correct in that a lot of clubs allow competent club members to conduct certain checks on other PPL's, but they cannot log it or get paid for it obviously. It is also done very regularily in private owner groups.
For what purpose would such a 'demonstration' be given? If you're flying a student on an instructional flight and 'demonstrate' an aerobatic manouevre then you are definitely imparting an element of aerobatic instruction. If you have a 'No aerobatic instruction' restriction on your FI rating, you are clearly operating outisde the privileges of your rating. Take this to the extreme by advertising 'aerobatic trial flights' with a 'no aerobatics' FI 'demonstrating' aerobatics to the trial flight 'students' and you're talking about glorified (and illegal) pleasure flights.... And what 'competence' would such an FI ever have demonstrated of his/her ability to perform aerobatics safely - and to whom?
If you want to show off your aerobatics to a student, then without the appropriate FI rating you will have to cost share on an agreed private flight - which, of course, the student will not be able to log.
If you want to have the restriction removed from your FI rating, you'll need to complete at least 5 hours of aerobatics flight training and 8 hours of theoretical training in accordance with a recognised syllabus at an approved FIC FTO under an FIC Instructor qualified to conduct aerobatics training and then obtain a recommendation from the FIC Instructor for the removal of the restriction.
If you want to show off your aerobatics to a student, then without the appropriate FI rating you will have to cost share on an agreed private flight - which, of course, the student will not be able to log.
If you want to have the restriction removed from your FI rating, you'll need to complete at least 5 hours of aerobatics flight training and 8 hours of theoretical training in accordance with a recognised syllabus at an approved FIC FTO under an FIC Instructor qualified to conduct aerobatics training and then obtain a recommendation from the FIC Instructor for the removal of the restriction.
Last edited by BEagle; 19th Jan 2004 at 06:11.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
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.
And they are only given if the FI is busy and the person being checked is a known good pilot who regularly flys but for some reason is a couple of days out. The PPL's who did them were all old salts who went solo before i was born.
Known twats don't get this option.
MJ
And they are only given if the FI is busy and the person being checked is a known good pilot who regularly flys but for some reason is a couple of days out. The PPL's who did them were all old salts who went solo before i was born.
Known twats don't get this option.
MJ
Oh really. Have these 'old salts' ever held any flight instructional qualification of any shape or form?
Sounds like a highly dubious state of affairs to me - commercial expediency at the expense of safety regulation.
More intersting reading for our friends down at the Belgrano. On the basis of this thread, the enforcement branch are soon going to be very busy people indeed, I would imagine......
Sounds like a highly dubious state of affairs to me - commercial expediency at the expense of safety regulation.
More intersting reading for our friends down at the Belgrano. On the basis of this thread, the enforcement branch are soon going to be very busy people indeed, I would imagine......
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its pretty standard BEagle. In fact some private owners groups have people listed on the insurance who can do the check rides.
There is not alot SRG can do about it because its not breaking any rules in the ANO. The pilots are all still within the legal currency limits they are only out on unoffical club regs. So as far as the rule book goes the other PPL is just a PAX. If the pilot owned there own plane they would have just of gone flying.
It is more of an insurance thing than anything else. I know my last full time instructors postion the schools insurance said that anyone was allowed to fly the plane with the permission of the CFI so he made the rules on who can do the check rides. I have seen other cover which has stated a 28day limit on PPL's and no limits on CPL holders and named pilots or FI's can carry out the check rides.
The local plane which has this cover the pilots listed 1 of them has a NPPL and 1000hrs and the other has PPL with 600 hours. All they did was send a photo copy of the last page of there log book and a copy of the front page of thier license. Having the 28day limit saved them 300 quid a year
In the 6 schools I have flown/ worked at in the UK its been SOP if there isn't a FI available. And 2 of those schools had CAAFU's as members who where present when a PPL-PPL check flight occured.
MJ
There is not alot SRG can do about it because its not breaking any rules in the ANO. The pilots are all still within the legal currency limits they are only out on unoffical club regs. So as far as the rule book goes the other PPL is just a PAX. If the pilot owned there own plane they would have just of gone flying.
It is more of an insurance thing than anything else. I know my last full time instructors postion the schools insurance said that anyone was allowed to fly the plane with the permission of the CFI so he made the rules on who can do the check rides. I have seen other cover which has stated a 28day limit on PPL's and no limits on CPL holders and named pilots or FI's can carry out the check rides.
The local plane which has this cover the pilots listed 1 of them has a NPPL and 1000hrs and the other has PPL with 600 hours. All they did was send a photo copy of the last page of there log book and a copy of the front page of thier license. Having the 28day limit saved them 300 quid a year
In the 6 schools I have flown/ worked at in the UK its been SOP if there isn't a FI available. And 2 of those schools had CAAFU's as members who where present when a PPL-PPL check flight occured.
MJ
Last edited by mad_jock; 19th Jan 2004 at 07:25.