Crack down on trial lessons?

[FlyingForFun]

If one of the stated aims of a trial lesson is to entice people to take up PPL training, then what is wrong with a land-away as part of the trial lesson? After all, landing away is one of the most useful and enjoyable uses of a PPL, so showing trial lesson students the full capabilities of the license we're suggesting they might like to train for seems entirely logical and reasonable to me.

I'm not sure that DFC's idea of doing this in a twin (and presumably in IMC, and why not on airways, too?) can be justified quite so easilly, though!

FFF
-----------------

[Send Clowns]

To add to DFC's comments the CAA used the fact that aerobatics were not in the PPL syllabus to stop a school running aerobatic flights as trial lesssons. The implication I would take is that any dual training that could reasonably be given towards a PPL can be given in a trial lesson. I regularly fly trial lessons and land away. It is in many ways more useful, as it represents what many people use a PPL for.

The twin would be clearly illegal though, DFC as one requirement to train in a twin is to have 70 hours PIC (unless taking an integrated CPL course).

The other thing justsomepilot said that I would take issue with is that the CAA will vigorously prosecute. I know of one case where an operator went well beyond training roles without the full requirements of an AOC, and was reported. The CAA backed off prosecution, and they allegedly continued to get away with conducting illegal AOC operations. At least one competitor threatened to stop renewing its AOC due to the unfair competition.

[hugh flung_dung]

Sendclowns:
why was the school stopped from offering aerobatics on trial lessons? - more details please as this is a strange statement to make.

There are some organisations with AOCs who use non-FIs for aerobatic experience flights and corporate days but a number of flying schools offer aeros as part of a trial lesson (with an FI) - this is perfectly legal providing it is a genuine trial lesson, as I said earlier. We want to sell the freedom and excitement of flight - there's no better way than with aerobatics.

Please substantiate your comment "The twin would be clearly illegal" - why? where do the regs say this? (hint, you may spend a long time looking)

HFD

[homeguard]

Aerobatics and the syllabus

Some years ago, pre JAA, the question of there being a specific Aerobatic Rating was raised at CAA Seminars. The CAA response at the time was to the effect that they had seriously considered such a rating but that it had proved impossible to define aerobatics in law so the idea was dropped.

Spinning is Ex 11 but Aerobatics is Ex 21 in the syllabus. The RAF nearly always include aerobatics as part of their 'air experience flight' to cadets.

[Send Clowns]

That's the only info I have, it's from a former CAA examiner with whom I was discussing the work I was doing and what I wanted to do. I am not certain that the event related to JARs, it may have been under the previous CAA regulations. He said it was definitely illegal to carry out aerobatics as part of a trial lesson, the reason was that they did not form a normal part of the PPL syllabus and that the CAA had either prosecuted or threatened prosecution to stop it happening (I can't remember which he said, but I think it was a prosecution).

My assumption is that there is an underlying presumption that to have a useful lesson in aerobatics the student must be able to fly already. If that is the case you might then justify teaching aeros to a PPL student, but not to someone with no experience.

I entirely agree with you that aeros are a great way to sell aviation, and I would say that it should be allowed as there is no added danger (and I think we are greatly over protective in our regulation of certain areas of life anyway), but I am not the one that needs convincing. You are not selling a marketing device, you are not allowed to. The organisation is only allowed to charge for its pilots to fly someone in a lesson.

The requirements to take a multi-engine rating are to have 70 hours as PIC. I don't have a copy of LASORs to hand, but that is from 3 different approved FTOs, so it seems reliable. Even if no regulation states training cannot be taken before this, then a trip that cannot count towards the rating or licence, and with the student a minimum of 100 hours away from being able to take the rating course, would be very hard to justify as a lesson in a court of law.

Remember you have to justify the trip as a lesson, as a court may well take the view that the CAA does not have to show that the lesson is banned but that you have to show that the trip is valuable as a lesson rather than simply a fun flight.

One thing I learnt from another friend who is an expert witness in aviation cases is not to go simply to the letter of the regulations. You must also always be able to justify your decisions in a court of law if anything goes wrong and you are sued or prosecuted.

[FlyingForFun]

it had proved impossible to define aerobatics in law

Serious risk of thread-creep here, but I'm sure I saw aerobatics defined somewhere as angles of bank exceeding 60 degrees, or angles of pitch exceeding 30 degrees. No idea where, though.

However, the POH for many aircraft includes a statement like "No aerobatic maneovres are approved", or "No aerobatic maneovres are approved except for <list of approved manoevres>". Since the POH forms part of the C of A, it is a legal document....

FFF
--------------

[hugh flung_dung]

Homeguard:
If my memory serves me correctly I believe it was agreed that the AOPA aerobatic certificate was adequate demonstration of skill and a rating was not required. The course was decreased from 10 to 8 hours (and cubans/reverse cubans were removed from the syllabus) at the same time to make it slightly more accessible.

The FAA define aerobatics as a bank angle of more than 60 degrees and/or a fuselage attitude of +/- 30 degrees - a bit simplistic but it seems not unreasonable.

Sendclowns:
I assure you that there is no problem in selling aerobatic trial lessons so I'm not sure where you get your info from.

As an MEP instructor/examiner I can also confirm that the 70 hours is correct, but this can be on MEP and there is nothing to stop someone getting an ab initio MEPL. I would be interested in an ANO reference that forbids a trial lesson being taken/given in a twin (although I accept it's far from common practice, the only time I've done it is when the allocated aircraft has gone u/s and we haven't wanted to dissappoint).

FFF:
You saw the definition in an FAA document. I hope we're all agreed that only a fool flies an aircraft outside it's POH.

HFD

[excrab]

What is the difference if a trial lesson involves aerobatics or not.

If a normal trial lesson involves teaching effects of controls and involves a briefing and debriefing to distinguish it from a pleasure flight then why not take it a step further and teach basic aerobatic manouevers such as loops and rolls?

Assuming that it is what the student wants and not just thrown in for the instructor to have some fun, then if it is properly briefed, the aircraft is certificated for aerobatics and the instructors rating doesn't carry the "no aerobatics" restriction what is the problem?

[FlyingForFun]

HFD,

You saw the definition in an FAA document

Ah, thanks!

I hope we're all agreed that only a fool flies an aircraft outside it's POH

Absolutely agreed. But I think you missed my point - all I was trying to do was point out that there are legal documents (e.g. the POH) which make reference to "aerobatics", therefore it's not valid to say that you can't ban aerobatics because there is no legal definition of aerobatics.

FFF
---------------

[BigEndBob]

If we keep the correct defintion of Ex3 Air Experience then anything could be done on that "trial lesson".

Who started calling these flights trial lessons. Its a term we all use.

I think it started when some clubs started selling 1 hour trial lessons for the cost of 1/2 hours flying or less to try and get one over the competition.

I know, we use to do it! we justify the rest of the time by saying it includes a brief etc, which they always had anyway.
Also its sounds more appealing and value for money in an advert.

As far as RLD's, clubs should refuse to agree to do them, they tried to screw us down so we would do them for free.
Then the purchaser of said RLD was suprised they could have bought an hour flight for same cost. Often these flights were only 25 minutes. I personally was embarrassed to do them and usually gave 30 minutes.

[Send Clowns]

HFD

As I said, it is not always the letter of the regulation, it is the justification in a court of law as a reasonable. Talking to my friend the expert witness there have been many cases where it was clear that no regulation banned what was being done in so many words, but the case hung on either whether the actions could be justified in accordance with normal or reasonable aviation practices. You risk the flight looking awfully like a charter with no AOC.

This I think should be clarified, as I could see certain less reputable organisations using any loophole, and putting pressure on instructors to fly, in effect, charter flights.

The source of the other information was, as stated, a retired CAA examiner.

[justsomepilot]

My comments were based on various info, including one scenario where a man (wishing to get a one-way flight to a golf club some 200 miles away) contacted each of several flying schools resident at a particular airport.

Each turned him down, including the only school that had an AOC (for air charter) except one which did normal PPL training and they did it as a "trial lesson".

The firm with the AOC could see this man getting a flight with all his golf gear, and told the CAA who then busted the school.

What exactly was illegal about this?

I stick to my comments about trial lessons, that most of the customers don't go on to do any training. Obviously it will vary; if a school markets itself at affluent professional people then they will have a much larger percentage of good recruits.

[DFC]

What exactly was illegal about this?

If we are talking about a helicopter flight - lack of a licensed airfields at the destination golf club perhaps?

Regards,

DFC

[homeguard]

The point please?

justsomepilot

I really do not understand the point that you continue to argue. In your own words you give an instance that a golfer attempted to persuade several flying schools to transport him under the guise of a 'Trial Lesson' but he was turned down by one then another. One school however, you tell us, did fly him and was reported and you say 'busted' by the CAA, whatever 'busted' means.

All the above shows that the rules are respected by the flying training schools. On bad apple dosn't mean that you axe the tree.

Let me assure you that every individual, whoever they are and however deep their pockets, that walks through the door we hope that they will continue. Trial flights may account for 10% of any schools income. The real income is from the full members who continue to learn and hire aircraft year upon year. Many of whom also support their flying club in many other ways in making it a success.

[Say again s l o w l y]

As DFC mentions, the "trial" flight would have been illegal as the Golf club was unlikely to have been licensed as an airfield, that's about the only real reasoning I can see behind the CAA jumping up and down.

The trial lesson being used as a public transport flight is incredibly rare and whilst I'm sure it occasionally goes on, what purpose is there in destroying an industry because of one or two idiots?

Trial flights are often the only thing that stands between profit and loss at most schools. The margins are extremely tight and getting rid of even 10% of business would shaft a lot of people.

It'll be interesting to see what happens now that it looks like Red Letter Days are no more. How will that affect many of the business that provide a/c for them.

[justsomepilot]

I was asking what it might have been about the flight that could have caused the CAA to prosecute (successfully) that school for not having an AOC.

The destination airport was a proper one, taking 737s as well as all the small stuff. It was a one-way flight. That's all I know.

Homeguard suggests some other rule would have been broken. I am just curious what it was.

I believe there is a rule that the passenger (on a trial lesson) must take the controls. If there isn't a rule against other passengers, then "abuse" is indeed possible.

[Say again s l o w l y]

What tosh.

If the only criteria would be to let someone have a go at the controls, then I must have been "illegal" many times. I have had a fair few people who have point blank refused to have a go despite all my best efforts.

On the other hand, if all you had to do to turn a public transport flight into a lesson was to allow them to manipulate the controls, that would be o.k would it?

The school in this case obviously knowingly took the chap on an AOC flight, without having one. That is enough for a kick in the goolies.

What I can't understand is why the school which did have an AOC didn't do the flight. Or am i missing something?

[slim_slag]

FFF/HFD,

The 30deg pitch/60 deg bank is related to wearing parachutes (91.307)

Aerobatics is defined in 91.303 as "an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight"

Back to topic, FWIW, FAR 119.1 (e) (2) allows anybody to perform

"Nonstop sightseeing flights conducted with aircraft having a passenger seat configuration of 30 or fewer, excluding each crewmember seat, and a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less, that begin and end at the same airport, and are conducted within a 25 statute mile radius of that airport....."

Seems a sensible approach (as always)

The FAA have tried to remove it, but it's the reg that allows charity flights, so they had to back off - for now....

I'd also advise any prospective student to shop around and find an instructor they can spend 30+ hours with in a cramped space. Hard to interview your instructor properly if you cannot go flying with them first.

[BigEndBob]

Would be easier if CAA allowed all flying clubs to do pleasure flying, with the restriction as per the FAA regs.
I'm sure there ain't much AOC pleasure flying, it seems to mainly boil down to the CAA using it as a means to generate more cash, nothing to do with safety.

[hugh flung_dung]

Thanks slim-slag, 'absolutely right - my memory is worse than I thought it was (I think )

This is a good link if anyone wants to look-up the FARs: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...4/14tab_02.tpl
HFD