Crack down on trial lessons?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Crack down on trial lessons?
This week's Flight uses quotes from Bob Commander, head of GA at the Belgrano, to the effect that they are cracking down on the public transport of passengers by flying clubs under the guise of trial lessons. This appears to stem from a CAA press release on 6 July about the release of CAP 755 - the 'Recreational Activities Manual'. It seems this is a CAA effort to apply the long-disputed JAR-OPS 4 (ops regs for aerial work) long before it is agreed in Europe.
I have read through CAP 755 and there is not a single mention of trial lessons nor of public transport. I do think there are some issues about the carriage of pax on trial flights - or indeed taking people up for 'lessons' which are little more than sightseeing - but it seems to me CAP 755 and its attended spin are not the way to go about it.
Anyone have any idea what is going on at the CAA?
NS
I have read through CAP 755 and there is not a single mention of trial lessons nor of public transport. I do think there are some issues about the carriage of pax on trial flights - or indeed taking people up for 'lessons' which are little more than sightseeing - but it seems to me CAP 755 and its attended spin are not the way to go about it.
Anyone have any idea what is going on at the CAA?
NS
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trials
I've written to bob Commander. Regarding CAP 755, as you say there is not one single mention of flying schools, Flying Instructors or Chief flying Instructors. It is simply a standards document outlining the conduct of an 'air experience' but not a first flying lesson. It would appear to be for the observance of those who are not registered as a Training Facility. But surely they should therefore hold an AOC. I think the idea is perhaps to regulate more comprehensively those organisations that are flying certain types and are not required to be 'Registered Facilities'although operating as clubs.
Where Flight International has gleaned the idea that the CAA is 'closing a loop hole' used by flying schools I do not know.
Bob Commander has replied to me to say that he needs to consult with various departments in order to clarify the purpose of CAP 755 and that I should have a reply early next week.
I will post the reply when it comes.
Where Flight International has gleaned the idea that the CAA is 'closing a loop hole' used by flying schools I do not know.
Bob Commander has replied to me to say that he needs to consult with various departments in order to clarify the purpose of CAP 755 and that I should have a reply early next week.
I will post the reply when it comes.
I don't know Bob Commander's take specific on this, but...
There is concern in particular about the "Red Letter Day" type air-experience flights which are de-facto public transport (jollies) but are being done often by AFIs with minimal supervision under the banner of "trial lessons".
The worry is that there's often a rush to get these through (exacerbated by the small profit the school makes per flight), and that the care and attention which would normally be applied to either a "real" flying lesson or a "real" PT passenger flight isn't being applied.
I suspect from things I've seen and heard that there may be moves from CAA to make it very clear that a trial lesson must really be a lesson - briefing, properly supervised AFI (or a full FI), debrief, logbook entry - the usual. This is primarily (I believe) so that anybody flying in a light aircraft (and paying for it) knows exactly what they're legally getting into.
If something is a genuine pax flight, then CAA would be quite right to insist upon an AOC.
Much of this stems from an ongoing movement within CAA to define "adventure aviation", what it is, and how it should be regulated. An as yet unpublished AAIB report on a fatal last year, where a "student" (pax!) on a short trial flight died along with his instructor. (Yes I have read the draft report, no I'm not going to go into any more detail).
G
There is concern in particular about the "Red Letter Day" type air-experience flights which are de-facto public transport (jollies) but are being done often by AFIs with minimal supervision under the banner of "trial lessons".
The worry is that there's often a rush to get these through (exacerbated by the small profit the school makes per flight), and that the care and attention which would normally be applied to either a "real" flying lesson or a "real" PT passenger flight isn't being applied.
I suspect from things I've seen and heard that there may be moves from CAA to make it very clear that a trial lesson must really be a lesson - briefing, properly supervised AFI (or a full FI), debrief, logbook entry - the usual. This is primarily (I believe) so that anybody flying in a light aircraft (and paying for it) knows exactly what they're legally getting into.
If something is a genuine pax flight, then CAA would be quite right to insist upon an AOC.
Much of this stems from an ongoing movement within CAA to define "adventure aviation", what it is, and how it should be regulated. An as yet unpublished AAIB report on a fatal last year, where a "student" (pax!) on a short trial flight died along with his instructor. (Yes I have read the draft report, no I'm not going to go into any more detail).
G
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be a fundamental problem if the officers of the authority responsible for enforcement have to discuss the rules to find ot what they mean. How on Earth am I, a lowly flight instructor, expected to make decisions on which my licence might depend if they cannot understand the rules?
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
I wonder how Bob Commander would like me to deal with the situation I found myself in last week?
A lady arrived for a trial lesson with her husband. She was briefed (as are all our trial lesson students), and her husband sat in on the briefing. As we walked out to the aeroplane, once out of earshot of her husband, she asked me if I'd mind doing all the flying. As we chatted, she told me that she loves flying, and her husband had bought her a number of trial lessons on aeroplanes and helicoptors over the last few years. After a few trial lessons, she'd decided that she had absolutely no interest in how the controls work, but she just liked the view. She told me she was trying to pursuade her husband to stop buying her any more vouchers.
What should I do? Should I refuse to carry out this "pleasure flight"? Would her husband then want a refund? How would she (or we) explain it to her husband?
Or how about the 60-minute trial lesson where the student tries using the controls, but after 2 minutes asks the instructor to take the controls because s/he is very nervous and would rather sit back and enjoy the view? Do I need to return to the airfield and give the student a refund for the rest of the lesson?
If Mr Commanders aim is to prevent companies who are not registered facilities from carrying out trial lessons, then he has my support. If his aim is to require an AOC for a red-letter-day type of experience, I think he'll have a huge amount of trouble, and the best he'll be able to come up with is maybe sticking an extra piece of paper in the box to explain to red-letter-day customers that they will be expected to take the controls, but there won't be any change to the actual conduct of trial lessons.
FFF
-------------
A lady arrived for a trial lesson with her husband. She was briefed (as are all our trial lesson students), and her husband sat in on the briefing. As we walked out to the aeroplane, once out of earshot of her husband, she asked me if I'd mind doing all the flying. As we chatted, she told me that she loves flying, and her husband had bought her a number of trial lessons on aeroplanes and helicoptors over the last few years. After a few trial lessons, she'd decided that she had absolutely no interest in how the controls work, but she just liked the view. She told me she was trying to pursuade her husband to stop buying her any more vouchers.
What should I do? Should I refuse to carry out this "pleasure flight"? Would her husband then want a refund? How would she (or we) explain it to her husband?
Or how about the 60-minute trial lesson where the student tries using the controls, but after 2 minutes asks the instructor to take the controls because s/he is very nervous and would rather sit back and enjoy the view? Do I need to return to the airfield and give the student a refund for the rest of the lesson?
If Mr Commanders aim is to prevent companies who are not registered facilities from carrying out trial lessons, then he has my support. If his aim is to require an AOC for a red-letter-day type of experience, I think he'll have a huge amount of trouble, and the best he'll be able to come up with is maybe sticking an extra piece of paper in the box to explain to red-letter-day customers that they will be expected to take the controls, but there won't be any change to the actual conduct of trial lessons.
FFF
-------------
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trial Lessons
I don't think that the CAA should have any concerns as to the purpose of a Trial Flight. If they are conducted correctly then the extent that the recipient wishes to participate is beyond anyones control.
However Trial flights are an important lifeline to flying Schools recruiting students. It is an opportunity for the student to discover whether it is really something they wish to do. It is also an opportunity for them to discover whether they wish to continue with a particular school. It is also a great advert for the world of flying. It is the only way they may safely, in the hands of a qualified Flying Instructor, enjoy such a full flying experience. A Commercial Pilot is not qualified to give instruction, an Instructor is.
We variously over the years have devised short courses for those who have a fear of flying and for those that accompany others such has husbands or wifes, who enrol for a 'safety pilot' course but with no intention go further.
Should a school simply throw people into the air and not brief or give instruction then training standards should deal with them. All our Trial Flights leave us having be given a thorough brief on the principles of flight and the effects of controls. Even if they leave with no intention to continue I hope at least they will understand more and see flying as much saver and have a much more positive attitude toward aviation. Only a qualified instructor is sure to have the knowledge and training to provide that.
However Trial flights are an important lifeline to flying Schools recruiting students. It is an opportunity for the student to discover whether it is really something they wish to do. It is also an opportunity for them to discover whether they wish to continue with a particular school. It is also a great advert for the world of flying. It is the only way they may safely, in the hands of a qualified Flying Instructor, enjoy such a full flying experience. A Commercial Pilot is not qualified to give instruction, an Instructor is.
We variously over the years have devised short courses for those who have a fear of flying and for those that accompany others such has husbands or wifes, who enrol for a 'safety pilot' course but with no intention go further.
Should a school simply throw people into the air and not brief or give instruction then training standards should deal with them. All our Trial Flights leave us having be given a thorough brief on the principles of flight and the effects of controls. Even if they leave with no intention to continue I hope at least they will understand more and see flying as much saver and have a much more positive attitude toward aviation. Only a qualified instructor is sure to have the knowledge and training to provide that.
I read the article in Flight and had great difficulty understanding what it was all about - why cannot these people explain in plain english what they are trying to do?
There is surely a difference between a flying lesson and a joy ride.
A lesson means a proper brief, an exercise that is taught in the air and, hopefully, a debrief.
That said, what concerns me is the "perpetual" trial lesson that turns up every few weeks but there again, playing devil's advocate, they are temporary members of the club and some of them do go on to complete a PPL eventually.
I just think the CAA should have better things to concern themselves about - as Beagle says if anyone is breaking the rules that is another matter which should be dealt with accordingly.
There is surely a difference between a flying lesson and a joy ride.
A lesson means a proper brief, an exercise that is taught in the air and, hopefully, a debrief.
That said, what concerns me is the "perpetual" trial lesson that turns up every few weeks but there again, playing devil's advocate, they are temporary members of the club and some of them do go on to complete a PPL eventually.
I just think the CAA should have better things to concern themselves about - as Beagle says if anyone is breaking the rules that is another matter which should be dealt with accordingly.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Goodwood
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it, CAP755 (copy in front of me) makes recommendations that are NOT compulsory, and is effectively a 'voluntary miniAOC'. Companies that want to be 'state of the art' will put the required Ops manual in place (or, like us, rejigger their existing Ops Manual so that it is CAP755 flavour) so that they are whiter than white. Companies that 'don't feel like it' will just not bother. So where is the value in the document? Good organisations that are probably not a CAA concern get additional admin, others will not be impacted.
There is concern in particular about the "Red Letter Day" type air-experience flights which are de-facto public transport (jollies) but are being done often by AFIs with minimal supervision under the banner of "trial lessons".
These introductory lessons are how we sell aviation to people who are not yet committed; people instructing on these flights need to remember that it's our shop front and need to pass on their enthusiasm and enjoyment.
A briefing is essential, but on these flights you will be teaching elements of most of the pre-solo exercises and plainly it's not reasonable to brief the whole lot. The briefing needs to give sufficient information for the student to be able to enjoy and understand the airborne teaching. Concerns and fears also need to be teased out and dealt with.
In my experience it's easily possible, in 10 minutes, to brief basic EoC, to outline the sortie AND to brief basic aerobatics.
During the flight the stude needs to be involved with as much as they can cope with so that they can feel that they learned the basics and that flying is something that they could master. It goes without saying that the flight must be fun and they should find their house if possible, or some local landmark that they have heard of.
In my experience it's again easily possible to do this and to teach (not just demo) basic aeros in a 30 minute trip.
After the flight they need a short debrief, the flight will be a blur, they need to be reminded of the major points and how they were able to climb/descend/turn/take-off/loop/etc., the exciting sensations, how enjoyable it was and the view, and ... the fact that the 30 minute lesson counts towards the minimum training needed for a license.
If this is done well it's tiring for the instructor but the stude doesn't feel "processed", they feel positive about aviation and may decide to take-up flying.
I believe that some organisations assign T/Ls to new FI(R)s, maybe we should be using our most experienced instructors...
Apologies for the sermon.
HFD
Last edited by hugh flung_dung; 22nd Jul 2005 at 21:35.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I treat all my red letter days, birthday present flights, and similar as real trial lessons. I try to persuade everyone to have a go on the controls, even if they hadn't planned to in the beginning. I telling them they may never get a flight in a helicopter again, they ought to at least have a try, and not to worry, I'll take over if they don't like it. A basic briefing takes very little time, and I give a bit more detail during the start-up etc. Almost everyone has been glad they gave it a try, and some really want to carry on, even if they had no intention of doing so before. If they don't like it I take over, and I think they learn quite a bit ust by watching anyway.
So why doesn't everyone do this; it's really no more difficult?
So why doesn't everyone do this; it's really no more difficult?
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Orlando, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When did these flights become "lessons"? I was always told that it was "Exercise 3: Air Experience" and that attempting to TEACH anything was a complete waste of the flight - as the person alongside you wasn't listening to a word - but just sitting there, open mouthed, at how different it was to be flying like a bird.
Absolutely, we ALWAYS got the "student" to "have a go" but it was always very very basic stuff (with you often secretly steering it with the rudder and trimmer) - but we never gave an EoC brief beforehand.
We just asked where they lived and/or worked and then tried to fly over that place to show them home from 2,000' if time allowed in a 30 minute flight.
Of course, all the patter about speed indications (but only so they could see how fast they were going) and altitude (for sake of interest when equated to fractions of miles instead of feet) went on - but nothing really educational.
First flight was meant to be pure pleasure and interest whilst deciding if you wanted to carry on for the full course - it was, as many have suggested the "shop window" for aviation training and the full PPL package was "sold" only if they enjoyed the flight. Their choice - no pressure.
One potential student that flew with us at Liverpool was sick as a dog and scared s***less when the instructor decided to demonstrate aerobatics to him on his "trial flight".
I absolutely agree that it should be a 100% honest "trial lesson" (for want of a better word) with a real potential student and not a sightseeing trip for a birthday present or whatever - one school used to charge for having extra passengers in the back seats - but it was never a full brief on the board before we went.
Lesson 2 (Exercise 4.1) was - absolutely - but not the "Air Experience" flight.
Absolutely, we ALWAYS got the "student" to "have a go" but it was always very very basic stuff (with you often secretly steering it with the rudder and trimmer) - but we never gave an EoC brief beforehand.
We just asked where they lived and/or worked and then tried to fly over that place to show them home from 2,000' if time allowed in a 30 minute flight.
Of course, all the patter about speed indications (but only so they could see how fast they were going) and altitude (for sake of interest when equated to fractions of miles instead of feet) went on - but nothing really educational.
First flight was meant to be pure pleasure and interest whilst deciding if you wanted to carry on for the full course - it was, as many have suggested the "shop window" for aviation training and the full PPL package was "sold" only if they enjoyed the flight. Their choice - no pressure.
One potential student that flew with us at Liverpool was sick as a dog and scared s***less when the instructor decided to demonstrate aerobatics to him on his "trial flight".
I absolutely agree that it should be a 100% honest "trial lesson" (for want of a better word) with a real potential student and not a sightseeing trip for a birthday present or whatever - one school used to charge for having extra passengers in the back seats - but it was never a full brief on the board before we went.
Lesson 2 (Exercise 4.1) was - absolutely - but not the "Air Experience" flight.
Genghis, I really don't think it's appropriate to make a general criticism about the conduct of trial flights or RLD air-experience flights. There may or may not be organisations where these flights are "rushed-through" but I can assure you that there is at least one organisation where they are taken as seriously as any other lesson.
G
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keygrip is correct in the description of the exercise 3 - Air Experience Flight.
There is little doubt that a very large part of the trial lesson jolly rides are nothing more than Public Transport in disguise.
Look at the stats.
How many air experience flights are conducted at various places and how many actually return to complete "the rest of the course"?
Are training providers that bad or had the person taking the lesson no intention of returning from the start?
This new CAP should be mandatory if the current situation is to continue because a) Schools should not be competing with AOC operators - they should be separate areas of operation. Furthermore how can AOC operators be required to observe strict rules on rests and duty hours when the school down the road has instructors working 12 hour days 7 days per week?
The argument about it being a lesson falls down when one can purchase in advance a 10 minute, a 20 minute a 30 minute a 1 hour "trial lesson" or even in one place pay an extra £30 to include an away landing.
If it is part of a organised training sylabus then it will have an overall set period in the sylabus i.e. exercise 3 will be 30 minutes.
Yes the time spent on each exercise varies but it varies based on the student's progress not on the size of their wallet!
To follow the same line we would see the 35 hour PPL course or (if you can afford it) the 55 hour PPL course or why not sign up in advance for the 100hour super PPL course!
Regards,
DFC
There is little doubt that a very large part of the trial lesson jolly rides are nothing more than Public Transport in disguise.
Look at the stats.
How many air experience flights are conducted at various places and how many actually return to complete "the rest of the course"?
Are training providers that bad or had the person taking the lesson no intention of returning from the start?
This new CAP should be mandatory if the current situation is to continue because a) Schools should not be competing with AOC operators - they should be separate areas of operation. Furthermore how can AOC operators be required to observe strict rules on rests and duty hours when the school down the road has instructors working 12 hour days 7 days per week?
The argument about it being a lesson falls down when one can purchase in advance a 10 minute, a 20 minute a 30 minute a 1 hour "trial lesson" or even in one place pay an extra £30 to include an away landing.
If it is part of a organised training sylabus then it will have an overall set period in the sylabus i.e. exercise 3 will be 30 minutes.
Yes the time spent on each exercise varies but it varies based on the student's progress not on the size of their wallet!
To follow the same line we would see the 35 hour PPL course or (if you can afford it) the 55 hour PPL course or why not sign up in advance for the 100hour super PPL course!
Regards,
DFC
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But what law says that everyone who starts learning to fly has to complete the course? People have different desires, ambitions, and finances - some want to be commercial pilots, some to be private pilots, some to just get the PPL in their hand, some just fly an aircraft solo once, some just take the controls once. Many of my trial lesson/air experience flight students are ecstatic at having actually experienced being in control of a helicopter (sort of!!!). Some of them are actually very good, and at the end of half an hour manage a gentle turn with the cyclic and fly us most of the way back to the airfield - and in an R22, that's not that easy. They go home having learned a lot, and whether they carry on is irrelevant to that fact.
That sounds an awful lot like a real lesson to me.
That sounds an awful lot like a real lesson to me.
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Orlando, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to say that I'm now with Whirly (and many others on this thread).
The trial lesson was always done as a "taster" - 99.9% of which was a thirty minute "jolly" during which it was my aim to make the flight so much fun for both the "student" and (mainly) his partner in the back.
I used to go to great lengths to involve wife/girlfriend/partner (whoever) and get them to come along and enjoy the ride. If the student did pick it up and continue with a course then they, as a couple, had to justify spending £4,000 on aeroplanes rather than on a new kitchen or a holiday with Mickey Mouse.
I, myself, was one who went for a "pleasure flight" - which was sold as a pleasure flight, not a trial lesson at Leeds/Bradford back in 1977. I turned up at the school and asked for the advertised price. They explained that they needed three people (at the advertised price per seat) to make it worthwhile flying the aicraft. I asked "Can I pay for all three seats, then?" at which point they said, "Well if you want to pay for the full aircraft then you should do a trial lesson and then you can have a go at flying it yourself".
I enjoyed it so much that as soon as we landed I signed up for a 40 hour PPL course.
I always flew my trial lessons in exactly the same way - give them so much fun that they signed up for the course - and that's why I gave no deep rooted briefings on EoC, Theory of Flight, Exercise 1 and 2 (as this first one was 3 - go figure) etc. Most certainly NOT aerobatics - though I could see why somebody would be interested AFTER the flight. I taught them NOTHING - just let them play and pointed out a thing or two.
The majority of people did sign up for further lessons - many completed and gained their wings, some dropped out before the end. Well, at £40 an hour it's to be expected, don't you think.
The trial lesson was always done as a "taster" - 99.9% of which was a thirty minute "jolly" during which it was my aim to make the flight so much fun for both the "student" and (mainly) his partner in the back.
I used to go to great lengths to involve wife/girlfriend/partner (whoever) and get them to come along and enjoy the ride. If the student did pick it up and continue with a course then they, as a couple, had to justify spending £4,000 on aeroplanes rather than on a new kitchen or a holiday with Mickey Mouse.
I, myself, was one who went for a "pleasure flight" - which was sold as a pleasure flight, not a trial lesson at Leeds/Bradford back in 1977. I turned up at the school and asked for the advertised price. They explained that they needed three people (at the advertised price per seat) to make it worthwhile flying the aicraft. I asked "Can I pay for all three seats, then?" at which point they said, "Well if you want to pay for the full aircraft then you should do a trial lesson and then you can have a go at flying it yourself".
I enjoyed it so much that as soon as we landed I signed up for a 40 hour PPL course.
I always flew my trial lessons in exactly the same way - give them so much fun that they signed up for the course - and that's why I gave no deep rooted briefings on EoC, Theory of Flight, Exercise 1 and 2 (as this first one was 3 - go figure) etc. Most certainly NOT aerobatics - though I could see why somebody would be interested AFTER the flight. I taught them NOTHING - just let them play and pointed out a thing or two.
The majority of people did sign up for further lessons - many completed and gained their wings, some dropped out before the end. Well, at £40 an hour it's to be expected, don't you think.
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
DFC, your last post is so full of holes, I don't know where to start!
There are many reasons why this might be the case. Many potential students will have trial lessons at 3 or 4 schools before deciding which school suits them the best. Lots of people just want to experience the controls once, as Whirly says. Maybe people turn up with the intention of learning to fly, but after having a go they decide it's not for them. And those are just the reasons which immediately spring to mind.
They are not. As Keygrip says, a trial lesson student has the aircraft entirely to himself (or he may bring family and friends along in the back seat, as may any student during any part of the syllabus, although I usually recommend to my students that they don't bring their family with for the stalling exercises). He will have a briefing explaining how the controls work, and take the controls (or at least be offered the chance to take the controls) for at least some, if not most, of the flight.
A pleasure flight is a flight which is probably shared with other people, and where the passengers do not have any involvement in the flight except to look out the window and go "ooh" and "ah". On the (only) pleasure flight I did - a helicoptor tour of the Grand Canyon - I did not even speak to the pilot, despite being in the front seat, next to him, which incidentally did not have any controls.
That's a good question, but I don't see how it's relevant to this thread - unless you view the AOC operator as competing with the school, and I've already explained why that's not the case.
The trial lesson includes an introduction to the controls. How much detail you can go into during this introduction, and how many of the controls are included, depends on the length of the lesson and the competence of the student.
For example, in a 20 minute lesson, I rarely get to cover anything more than an introduction to ailerons and elevators. In an hour lesson, with a student who is picking things up quickly, I may cover cover primary and secondary effects of all three primary controls, use of power for climbing and descending as well as changes of speed, use of flap for landing, and use of the trim wheel. Of course I can't cover all this in enough detail for the student to understand it all completely, but by the end of the lesson the student will undersand the controls well enough to be able to set the aircraft up for the descent and landing under my guidance.
Another example is a reputable school (in fact, the school where I did my PPL) where, after the initial trial lesson, they sell a package which includes all the books, etc, to get you started, as well as two 60-minute lessons. Typically this will be enough time to cover ex 4-6, but exactly what can be covered in these first two post-trial-lesson flights will depend on the speed at which each student learns. So fixed lesson lengths are certainly not imcompatible with following a training syllabus.
Comparing the length of a trial lesson with the length of a PPL course is, quite frankly, nonsense. The course, by definition, covers the entire syllabus, and its length will vary from person to person depending how quickly they can absorb the syllabus. The lesson, on the other hand, contains a small part of the syllabus - the longer the lesson, the more it contains (and therefore the fewer lessons there are in the course, broadly speaking).
FFF
-----------------
How many air experience flights are conducted at various places and how many actually return to complete "the rest of the course"?
Schools should not be competing with AOC operators - they should be separate areas of operation
A pleasure flight is a flight which is probably shared with other people, and where the passengers do not have any involvement in the flight except to look out the window and go "ooh" and "ah". On the (only) pleasure flight I did - a helicoptor tour of the Grand Canyon - I did not even speak to the pilot, despite being in the front seat, next to him, which incidentally did not have any controls.
Furthermore how can AOC operators be required to observe strict rules on rests and duty hours when the school down the road has instructors working 12 hour days 7 days per week?
The argument about it being a lesson falls down when one can purchase in advance a 10 minute, a 20 minute a 30 minute a 1 hour "trial lesson" or even in one place pay an extra £30 to include an away landing.
For example, in a 20 minute lesson, I rarely get to cover anything more than an introduction to ailerons and elevators. In an hour lesson, with a student who is picking things up quickly, I may cover cover primary and secondary effects of all three primary controls, use of power for climbing and descending as well as changes of speed, use of flap for landing, and use of the trim wheel. Of course I can't cover all this in enough detail for the student to understand it all completely, but by the end of the lesson the student will undersand the controls well enough to be able to set the aircraft up for the descent and landing under my guidance.
Another example is a reputable school (in fact, the school where I did my PPL) where, after the initial trial lesson, they sell a package which includes all the books, etc, to get you started, as well as two 60-minute lessons. Typically this will be enough time to cover ex 4-6, but exactly what can be covered in these first two post-trial-lesson flights will depend on the speed at which each student learns. So fixed lesson lengths are certainly not imcompatible with following a training syllabus.
Comparing the length of a trial lesson with the length of a PPL course is, quite frankly, nonsense. The course, by definition, covers the entire syllabus, and its length will vary from person to person depending how quickly they can absorb the syllabus. The lesson, on the other hand, contains a small part of the syllabus - the longer the lesson, the more it contains (and therefore the fewer lessons there are in the course, broadly speaking).
FFF
-----------------
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Norwich
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tomorrow I have 3 trial lessons. On each I will teach basic effects of the controls backed up by a pre-flight brief actually looking at these devices, whether they want to or not. They are learning hopefully?
Unfortunately, (using an analogy) I cannot say that the school down the road will be doing something similar in his agricultural version of a C152. This guy needs some regulating. I do not believe I do. So how do we solve this problem?
I’ve found over the years, an increase in gift voucher sales from an industry unrelated to aviation. These people are selling pleasure flights but worded legally. This I believe will give prompt for the scallywags of aviation to take advantage.
I am glad the authority has shared an interest in this. I am also pleased to see others in this topic share a professional attitude towards trial lessons. Lets be honest, it’s difficult to earn a reasonable living being flying instructors when you’re starting off and trial lessons can be good learning ground.
Bingo…
Unfortunately, (using an analogy) I cannot say that the school down the road will be doing something similar in his agricultural version of a C152. This guy needs some regulating. I do not believe I do. So how do we solve this problem?
I’ve found over the years, an increase in gift voucher sales from an industry unrelated to aviation. These people are selling pleasure flights but worded legally. This I believe will give prompt for the scallywags of aviation to take advantage.
I am glad the authority has shared an interest in this. I am also pleased to see others in this topic share a professional attitude towards trial lessons. Lets be honest, it’s difficult to earn a reasonable living being flying instructors when you’re starting off and trial lessons can be good learning ground.
Bingo…