Carriage of Passengers on Training Flights
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 Donkeys
Article 21 relates to the Requirement for Flight Crew to hold a Licence.
Para 5a states the conditions under which a non licensed pilot may act as PIC. One of the conditions is that they may not carry passengers e.g. solo flight or an obnserved test.
The original reference is about Flying Lessons where the aircraft is commanded by a licensed pilot; Para 5 is not relevant.
Article 21 relates to the Requirement for Flight Crew to hold a Licence.
Para 5a states the conditions under which a non licensed pilot may act as PIC. One of the conditions is that they may not carry passengers e.g. solo flight or an obnserved test.
The original reference is about Flying Lessons where the aircraft is commanded by a licensed pilot; Para 5 is not relevant.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Noggin, that is not the way I read it:
"(cc) if the pilot in command of the aircraft is the holder of an appropriate licence, a person carried for the
purpose of being trained or tested as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft"
seems to cover the case where the instructor is acting as PIC and the Pilot is PUT.
"(cc) if the pilot in command of the aircraft is the holder of an appropriate licence, a person carried for the
purpose of being trained or tested as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft"
seems to cover the case where the instructor is acting as PIC and the Pilot is PUT.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry 2 donkeys but you read it incorrectly. Paragraph (b) contains the conditions relating to paragraph (a) which, in turn, relates only to a person acting as pilot without being the holder of an appropriate licence.
The section that you quote is of no relevance whatsoever to a dual training flight
The section that you quote is of no relevance whatsoever to a dual training flight
21(5) is, I think, designed to allow for training in multipilot aircraft. Without it, two crew plus the student would be required, which would be a bit daft. It allows the student to act as P2.
Note 21(5)(b)(ii) which requires a pilot taking advantage of such an exemption to have a licence already (or be a military pilot), it just doesn't have to be a licence with the correct type rating on.
21(2)(c) is the bit that covers ab initio training, and it doesn't have a 'no passengers' provision.
Note 21(5)(b)(ii) which requires a pilot taking advantage of such an exemption to have a licence already (or be a military pilot), it just doesn't have to be a licence with the correct type rating on.
21(2)(c) is the bit that covers ab initio training, and it doesn't have a 'no passengers' provision.
2Donkeys - I agree with you on this one as it is a constant source of discussion within the Training world.
I read the pilot in 5.a as being the person being trained/examined/assessed for licence issue/renewal. He/she is authorised by Para 5.a to pilot (handle) the aircraft even though they may not have an appropriate licence to do that. Note, it does not matter if they already hold, say, a PPL and it is simply being renewed or extended, as most basic training aircraft are single crew anyway. They are therefore handling the aircraft while the Single Crew pilot (ie the PIC Instructor) sits and Instructs/assesses. One of the conditions of them being allowed to pilot Single Crew aircraft even though they are not PIC is that no other person may be carried in the aircraft (Para 5.b.i) unless they have a formal part to play in the proceedings as defined in the exceptions to Para 5.b.i.
Note that it is not a case of who is PIC. It simply states that the trainee/assessee is not permitted to pilot the aircraft if another person is sat in the back. The only exception to this is where the person in the back is also undergoing training and will benefit from the experience (5.b.i.cc). For example, one student flies one leg and then the other student flies the next leg. Watching from the back is excellent training and satisfies 5.b.i.cc. But the students need to be of a similar stage in their training to benefit and you would have to prove that through Student Records or similar documentation. The Trial Lesson (Lesson 3 in the PPL course) case is no exception to 5.b.i.cc and is one where I believe you can carry an "observer" as they are at a similar level. I brief student and observer together and ask them both if they have any questions before we walk out to the aircraft. On one occasion the "observer" came back for more but the "student" decided to stick to fishing or whatever he was in to!!!!
Finally, I would not carry someone in the back unless I could prove 5.b.i.cc as most Insurance is linked to the aircraft being operated legally. Given the dreadful situation where an accident arises the Insurance company would look very closely at who was doing what and why, and you would need to prove to them that Aunt Maud, who was sat in the back at the time, was actually training and not just enjoying the view.
Noggin - just a small point but a Trial Lesson is an official lesson - also called an Introductory Flight or Air Experience Flight! Lesson 3 if I'm not mistaken - not got a Syllabus to hand! It is just as valid as a "Stalling Lesson" or "PFL Lesson".
Fly-by-Wireless - The rules on your question are clear - no matter how "skint" you are! If you fly and don't cover your portion of the cost you are gaining free hours. The rule is cost-sharing. You can split the cost of the flight between all the occupants but you MUST pay your share! As an aside, your use of the phrase "show-off flight" is a worry to me as an Instructor. "Showing off" kills people pure and simple. I know what you mean but the phrase "show-off" sends a chill down my spine. Sadly, I personally know at least one person who died - probably "showing off" knowing the person/circumstances. Picky I know but attitude is all important in flying. Anyway, good luck with your Training!!!!!!
Regards, H 'n' H
PS Willing to stand to be corrected as, is ever the way in aviation, things are often far from clear!
I read the pilot in 5.a as being the person being trained/examined/assessed for licence issue/renewal. He/she is authorised by Para 5.a to pilot (handle) the aircraft even though they may not have an appropriate licence to do that. Note, it does not matter if they already hold, say, a PPL and it is simply being renewed or extended, as most basic training aircraft are single crew anyway. They are therefore handling the aircraft while the Single Crew pilot (ie the PIC Instructor) sits and Instructs/assesses. One of the conditions of them being allowed to pilot Single Crew aircraft even though they are not PIC is that no other person may be carried in the aircraft (Para 5.b.i) unless they have a formal part to play in the proceedings as defined in the exceptions to Para 5.b.i.
Note that it is not a case of who is PIC. It simply states that the trainee/assessee is not permitted to pilot the aircraft if another person is sat in the back. The only exception to this is where the person in the back is also undergoing training and will benefit from the experience (5.b.i.cc). For example, one student flies one leg and then the other student flies the next leg. Watching from the back is excellent training and satisfies 5.b.i.cc. But the students need to be of a similar stage in their training to benefit and you would have to prove that through Student Records or similar documentation. The Trial Lesson (Lesson 3 in the PPL course) case is no exception to 5.b.i.cc and is one where I believe you can carry an "observer" as they are at a similar level. I brief student and observer together and ask them both if they have any questions before we walk out to the aircraft. On one occasion the "observer" came back for more but the "student" decided to stick to fishing or whatever he was in to!!!!
Finally, I would not carry someone in the back unless I could prove 5.b.i.cc as most Insurance is linked to the aircraft being operated legally. Given the dreadful situation where an accident arises the Insurance company would look very closely at who was doing what and why, and you would need to prove to them that Aunt Maud, who was sat in the back at the time, was actually training and not just enjoying the view.
Noggin - just a small point but a Trial Lesson is an official lesson - also called an Introductory Flight or Air Experience Flight! Lesson 3 if I'm not mistaken - not got a Syllabus to hand! It is just as valid as a "Stalling Lesson" or "PFL Lesson".
Fly-by-Wireless - The rules on your question are clear - no matter how "skint" you are! If you fly and don't cover your portion of the cost you are gaining free hours. The rule is cost-sharing. You can split the cost of the flight between all the occupants but you MUST pay your share! As an aside, your use of the phrase "show-off flight" is a worry to me as an Instructor. "Showing off" kills people pure and simple. I know what you mean but the phrase "show-off" sends a chill down my spine. Sadly, I personally know at least one person who died - probably "showing off" knowing the person/circumstances. Picky I know but attitude is all important in flying. Anyway, good luck with your Training!!!!!!
Regards, H 'n' H
PS Willing to stand to be corrected as, is ever the way in aviation, things are often far from clear!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H'n'H
Thanks for the reply. Although the rules are probably very obvious, being very new to aviation, I havn't come across them yet and this question has been bugging me regarding the definition of 'gain' in the licence regulations. It's also nice to see a FI who doesn't 'ignore the idiot with the stupid question' - thank you. (No serious offence intended to those who didn't bother replying) <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Regarding "showing-off", I think you understood what I really meant. Certainly not in my case, but I know it is common, for parents to finance a PPL and it must be common in this situation to show the appreciation of his/her financial backers by taking them on a "thankyou" flight. I didn't mean engaging in amateur aerobatics/hotdogging round the skies.
Thanks for the reply. Although the rules are probably very obvious, being very new to aviation, I havn't come across them yet and this question has been bugging me regarding the definition of 'gain' in the licence regulations. It's also nice to see a FI who doesn't 'ignore the idiot with the stupid question' - thank you. (No serious offence intended to those who didn't bother replying) <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Regarding "showing-off", I think you understood what I really meant. Certainly not in my case, but I know it is common, for parents to finance a PPL and it must be common in this situation to show the appreciation of his/her financial backers by taking them on a "thankyou" flight. I didn't mean engaging in amateur aerobatics/hotdogging round the skies.
Fly-by-Wireless - I understood exactly what you meant!!!! However, in aviation, I do believe precision pays - including choice of words in many cases! Very picky I know but it is something I encourage in all my students. Attitude in flying is all important; just as important as practical flying skills etc. Anyway, it will be amazing for you when you take your supporters flying for the first time so keep up the hard work, enjoy the training, become a good pilot and then get yourself that bit of JAA paper off the CAA. Oh, by the way, there is no such thing as a "stupid question"! So don't ever let that put you off asking.
Noggin - Thanks for your latest post. Firstly, just a small point but the "Trial" lesson is actually called a "Trial lesson" (or any of the others I mentioned) for a good reason. The aim of the Lesson is to give the student a chance to "try" out (a) flying and (b) the school before spending a fortune on further, more detailed, training. I am sure Jeremy Pratt and AFE will forgive me if I quote the aim for Lesson 3 from his Flying Training book. He says the aim is ".. to give you a taste of being airborne and flying in a light aircraft. Although no formal instruction is given, ..." Page 3.1 of the PPL Flying Training book and, NO, I don't get a commission!!!!!!!!!! I'm sure Trevor Thom says the same thing - I just don't have his book to hand right now even though I use both sets at work - sorry about that Trevor! In reality, I do give my Trial Lesson students a good brief on basic Effects of Controls and Attitude Control, thus giving them some formal instruction. This gives them a taste of a Ground Brief as well as helping them enjoy the flight itself more. So, really, "Trial" is a perfect way to describe the "aim" of Lesson 3 and has been so for at least 10 years. Also, I always encourage serious students to "try" other schools if they are at all unsure - and most come straight back!
Regarding the 'misinterpretation' of the ANO, please direct me to the appropriate reference as I am always turning people away from coming along in the back! I would love to take people along on a training flight but I have yet to see evidence to change what I have always been told and understood. Mind you, even if/when I change my view, I would spare them the likes of Ex 10a, 10b, 13e, 15 and 17a as a starter - even I get queasy doing some of those! Maybe there is someone from the CAA who would care to enlighten us. So, do let me know the appropriate reference and I will certainly follow up your lead as I know several people who would love to come along for a flight. As I said in my last post - always willing to stand corrected!
Hope the above is of some use. Regards, H 'n' H
Noggin - Thanks for your latest post. Firstly, just a small point but the "Trial" lesson is actually called a "Trial lesson" (or any of the others I mentioned) for a good reason. The aim of the Lesson is to give the student a chance to "try" out (a) flying and (b) the school before spending a fortune on further, more detailed, training. I am sure Jeremy Pratt and AFE will forgive me if I quote the aim for Lesson 3 from his Flying Training book. He says the aim is ".. to give you a taste of being airborne and flying in a light aircraft. Although no formal instruction is given, ..." Page 3.1 of the PPL Flying Training book and, NO, I don't get a commission!!!!!!!!!! I'm sure Trevor Thom says the same thing - I just don't have his book to hand right now even though I use both sets at work - sorry about that Trevor! In reality, I do give my Trial Lesson students a good brief on basic Effects of Controls and Attitude Control, thus giving them some formal instruction. This gives them a taste of a Ground Brief as well as helping them enjoy the flight itself more. So, really, "Trial" is a perfect way to describe the "aim" of Lesson 3 and has been so for at least 10 years. Also, I always encourage serious students to "try" other schools if they are at all unsure - and most come straight back!
Regarding the 'misinterpretation' of the ANO, please direct me to the appropriate reference as I am always turning people away from coming along in the back! I would love to take people along on a training flight but I have yet to see evidence to change what I have always been told and understood. Mind you, even if/when I change my view, I would spare them the likes of Ex 10a, 10b, 13e, 15 and 17a as a starter - even I get queasy doing some of those! Maybe there is someone from the CAA who would care to enlighten us. So, do let me know the appropriate reference and I will certainly follow up your lead as I know several people who would love to come along for a flight. As I said in my last post - always willing to stand corrected!
Hope the above is of some use. Regards, H 'n' H
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Shoreham West Sussex
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trevor Thom also states that ex 3 is not part of your formal instruction, but then sets out a number of important matters over the next few pages. Ron Campbell (do we remember him?) calls ex 3 "Air Experience" and states that the point of it is "to give the student an opportunity of experiencing the environment of flight before undertaking formal tuition in flying". I think that sums up the purpose of a trial lesson perfectly.
I have always thought that if you carried the spouse in the back on such a flight it was a good idea, since what you are doing is taking up another person "who has an interest in the flight". This surely makes logical sense as the person in the front seat is about to make a decision about which a large amount of the joint household budget will be tied up. There must be some sense in checking to see if the other half actually enjoys it or whether they would be better taking up golf or boating (heaven forbid!).
Any thoughts on this view? By the way my memory seems to suggest that there was a sort of CAA view on this expressed in a GASIL article a number of years ago.
I have always thought that if you carried the spouse in the back on such a flight it was a good idea, since what you are doing is taking up another person "who has an interest in the flight". This surely makes logical sense as the person in the front seat is about to make a decision about which a large amount of the joint household budget will be tied up. There must be some sense in checking to see if the other half actually enjoys it or whether they would be better taking up golf or boating (heaven forbid!).
Any thoughts on this view? By the way my memory seems to suggest that there was a sort of CAA view on this expressed in a GASIL article a number of years ago.
cessnababe - Quite agree as the person in the back also "experiences" the sensation of flying in a light aircraft. Can't recall the GASIL article though. Did it discuss the issue of any training flights or just Ex 3?
H 'n' H
H 'n' H
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About 3 years ago the Head of Enforcement at the CAA tried to implement a change in the law to stop people being carried on "Trial Lessons" now if it was illegal allready, they would not gave gone to the bother. They gave up, because it was all too complicated and had knock on effects e.g. it would prohibit revenue flights to and from maintenance bases etc and prevent the carriage of two students etc. I have regularly carried someone in the back, when appropriate to do so; I deceide, there is no problem.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right, but it was only guidance, not official, and has no doubt been lost with the course of time.
One interesting point raised earlier was that flying instruction is aerial work, it is only aerial work if it is paid instruction, if not, the flight is privte.
One interesting point raised earlier was that flying instruction is aerial work, it is only aerial work if it is paid instruction, if not, the flight is privte.
