Training from unlicenced aerodromes
Obviously I can't speak for others but when I was learning to fly at Popham we flew to White Waltham to do a touch & go to start the lesson. After the lesson we landed and had a cuppa before flying back to Popham. Although I flew the transit legs I only booked the time between the touch & go and the landing at WW.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
llanfairpg
Thanks. At least someone else understands this all the same way I do. I brought this same subject up some years ago - maybe 4 or so. Personally I would not instruct at one of these clubs since I researched it and come to the same answers as yourself.
Yes the CAA are currently pondering a proposal to allow instruction (other than microlight and other such categories which already have these 'privileges') from unlicenced aerodromes.
I didnt raise this issue about Popham but another airfield at the time. I am still at a loss to see how the CAA lets this go on - yet is quite happy to hammer us in every other way possible.
The answer I got at the time was the 'ferry flight' is FREE - the instructor is allowed the benefit in kind of the time - but possibly questions over tax liability for time on this flight if unpaid?..I dont know. If they claim the cost of the fuel/time etc is factored into the instrcution only flight then they have still charged you for the ferry and that requires an AOC.
I have NO IDEA how these organisations managed to get their RF status without the CAA checking that the a/d used was licenced - differences training etc etc perhaps - but surely when the first ab-initio application hit the CAA it should have sent the waves rolling out and the alarm bells ringing...apparrently not. Yet, in TrainingCom we get advice about why the CAA oft refuses night quals is because of incorrect logging of flights...If the student only logs the licenced A/D portion maybe the CAA didnt notice..but it still beggars belief.
Even if they only 'instruct' between licenced a/d the ferry flight is still illegal if the student pays at all. And any 'instructing' on the instructors log book would be a mis-declaration as they were not entitled to instruct on the ferry flight.
Its an absolute mire.
Personally I think that anyone thinking about flying with any organisation that offers training from an unlicenced airfield under the current rules should just simply walk away. If any thing goes wrong - god forbid - the insurance companies can start wriggling...and then it will hit the fan - imagine the newspaper headlines...FFS it would be a field-day.
Thanks. At least someone else understands this all the same way I do. I brought this same subject up some years ago - maybe 4 or so. Personally I would not instruct at one of these clubs since I researched it and come to the same answers as yourself.
Yes the CAA are currently pondering a proposal to allow instruction (other than microlight and other such categories which already have these 'privileges') from unlicenced aerodromes.
I didnt raise this issue about Popham but another airfield at the time. I am still at a loss to see how the CAA lets this go on - yet is quite happy to hammer us in every other way possible.
The answer I got at the time was the 'ferry flight' is FREE - the instructor is allowed the benefit in kind of the time - but possibly questions over tax liability for time on this flight if unpaid?..I dont know. If they claim the cost of the fuel/time etc is factored into the instrcution only flight then they have still charged you for the ferry and that requires an AOC.
I have NO IDEA how these organisations managed to get their RF status without the CAA checking that the a/d used was licenced - differences training etc etc perhaps - but surely when the first ab-initio application hit the CAA it should have sent the waves rolling out and the alarm bells ringing...apparrently not. Yet, in TrainingCom we get advice about why the CAA oft refuses night quals is because of incorrect logging of flights...If the student only logs the licenced A/D portion maybe the CAA didnt notice..but it still beggars belief.
Even if they only 'instruct' between licenced a/d the ferry flight is still illegal if the student pays at all. And any 'instructing' on the instructors log book would be a mis-declaration as they were not entitled to instruct on the ferry flight.
Its an absolute mire.
Personally I think that anyone thinking about flying with any organisation that offers training from an unlicenced airfield under the current rules should just simply walk away. If any thing goes wrong - god forbid - the insurance companies can start wriggling...and then it will hit the fan - imagine the newspaper headlines...FFS it would be a field-day.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Training for a licence or aircraft rating does not have to take place within a 'club'.
The confusion in the latter case may be related to the the privileges of an FI who holds only a PPL. The privileges of a PPL do not include aerial work except for glider towing, para dropping or flight instruction and testing "in an aeroplane owned, or operated under arrangements entered into, by a flying club of which the person giving the instruction or conducting the test and the person receiving the instruction or undergoing the test are both members" Note that it is the qualification of the FI that requires the club environment, not the flight instruction.
The confusion in the latter case may be related to the the privileges of an FI who holds only a PPL. The privileges of a PPL do not include aerial work except for glider towing, para dropping or flight instruction and testing "in an aeroplane owned, or operated under arrangements entered into, by a flying club of which the person giving the instruction or conducting the test and the person receiving the instruction or undergoing the test are both members" Note that it is the qualification of the FI that requires the club environment, not the flight instruction.
I assume that organisations such as OAT constitute the club as stated in the Schedule,(why shouldn't they?) and that the AOC and Ops Manual via the Training Manual separately give you authority to provide flying training in accordance with your TRI qualification.
If I'm not correct, then I too am confused
Guest
Posts: n/a
so taking off from and landing your cub/172 on a beach can't be counted? how about if during your flight from a licensed airfield, you do a couple of FLWOP into a farmers ag strip, doing a touch and go each time. can that be counted?
geez i'm glad i live down here
geez i'm glad i live down here
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cant be counted? The flight would be illegal for training - both the beach and the farmers field unless the runways are licenced - I think there is possibly one licenced beach in the UK though that vaguely comes to mind...
I should make mention of the Touch and Go...as well - T&G ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. The flight must be started at and terminate at a licenced aerodrome. That means from one an a/c moves under its own power, to taxi, with the intention of flight until in next comes to rest. i.e. You must have a brakes-on to brakes-off flight - not a T&G.
You have to ask yourself these questions:
1. If my instructor is willing to break the rules to this degree what on earth is his motivation? Is he more worried about the number of hours in his logbook (with his eye on an airline job perhaps?) rather than worrying about my interests as a student?
2. If my instructor doesnt understand the rules - how much more doesnt he know? What quality of training am I receiving?
3. If my instructor is willing the break these rules - how many more is he willing to break? Is he even legal to fly? (talking to a number of FIEs about this who run instructor seminars the answer to this question is potentially quite frightening.)
I should make mention of the Touch and Go...as well - T&G ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. The flight must be started at and terminate at a licenced aerodrome. That means from one an a/c moves under its own power, to taxi, with the intention of flight until in next comes to rest. i.e. You must have a brakes-on to brakes-off flight - not a T&G.
You have to ask yourself these questions:
1. If my instructor is willing to break the rules to this degree what on earth is his motivation? Is he more worried about the number of hours in his logbook (with his eye on an airline job perhaps?) rather than worrying about my interests as a student?
2. If my instructor doesnt understand the rules - how much more doesnt he know? What quality of training am I receiving?
3. If my instructor is willing the break these rules - how many more is he willing to break? Is he even legal to fly? (talking to a number of FIEs about this who run instructor seminars the answer to this question is potentially quite frightening.)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well guys looks like the whole of the JAR world might be moving to a system that permits these dangerous lunatics to inflict flight training on poor un suspecting souls.
So what are you going to moan about then. I work from an unlicensed field and I have lost count of the number of students who tell me what an awful experience they have endured at licensed fieds in the area.
Just because you wear gold bars and polish your shoes doesn't make you safer !
Now that is bound to get a response !
So what are you going to moan about then. I work from an unlicensed field and I have lost count of the number of students who tell me what an awful experience they have endured at licensed fieds in the area.
Just because you wear gold bars and polish your shoes doesn't make you safer !
Now that is bound to get a response !
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hehehehe..Could I resist such a prod!? Of course not
Yep no problem with that when it happens. But as it is currently under consideration it is our responsibility as instructors and exmaniners to ensure that the laws as they are are complied with and to set an example to students. The rules matter. The laws matter.
I hasten to add that all my comments about unlicensed fields place 'goernment aerodromes' in the same category as licensed airfields for the purposes of this discussion.
Any instructor who blatently flies and instructs against these rules is a disgrace - it goes against everything that being an example of good aviation practice is about.
er...lack of gold bars on the instructors at said airfields
Yeah much instructing can take place at unlicenced fields. Ive flown in an out of some unlicenced fields during some sorties. However, all of these are within the realms of the rules that have been laid down. The discussion here was quite clearly (from post #1) about training for the purposes of obtaining a licence.
er....so the status of an AERODROME licence is an indication of the quality of instruction that will be received?! Pardon? Did you really mean to suggest this?
Personally I think the quality of instruction in the UK is pretty poor at a lot of places and Ive heard never ending tales of bad instruction. The gold bar places can be just as good - or just as bad as anywhere else (ive experienced both - but gold bars at commercial levels). However, gold bars when treaching PPLs is just plain silly. I can think of one club I know of in the midlands where one or two instructors think gold bars are what its about. very sad. very silly. In fact laughable - if it wasnt for my concern about students at these sorts of establishments. But thats really creeping into another discussion.
I also work from an unlicenced airfield...the fact its a government aerodrome helps somewhat and tends to keep me within the law.
I hasten to add that all my comments about unlicensed fields place 'goernment aerodromes' in the same category as licensed airfields for the purposes of this discussion.
Any instructor who blatently flies and instructs against these rules is a disgrace - it goes against everything that being an example of good aviation practice is about.
er...lack of gold bars on the instructors at said airfields
er....so the status of an AERODROME licence is an indication of the quality of instruction that will be received?! Pardon? Did you really mean to suggest this?
Personally I think the quality of instruction in the UK is pretty poor at a lot of places and Ive heard never ending tales of bad instruction. The gold bar places can be just as good - or just as bad as anywhere else (ive experienced both - but gold bars at commercial levels). However, gold bars when treaching PPLs is just plain silly. I can think of one club I know of in the midlands where one or two instructors think gold bars are what its about. very sad. very silly. In fact laughable - if it wasnt for my concern about students at these sorts of establishments. But thats really creeping into another discussion.
I also work from an unlicenced airfield...the fact its a government aerodrome helps somewhat and tends to keep me within the law.
The 'Club' requirement doesn't only apply to just PPL holders with an FI rating, but also to CPL/ATPL holders. The ANO Schedule 8 includes the same proviso for all flying instruction, regardless of the licence held.
OAT is not a 'club' - it doesn't need to be since it does not employ instructors with a UK PPL. Back when PPL training was undertaken at OAT (and prior to JAR), they had a club, called the Oxford Flyers, which anyone undergoing PPL training, or hiring aircraft privately, was obliged to join.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it doesn't. The only place that the 'flying club' proviso appears in Schedule 8 is under the privileges of a UK PPL (para 2(a)(i) and 2(a)(ii)). The same restriction does not even apply to the holder of a JAA PPL.
OAT is not a 'club' - it doesn't need to be since it does not employ instructors with a UK PPL. Back when PPL training was undertaken at OAT (and prior to JAR), they had a club, called the Oxford Flyers, which anyone undergoing PPL training, or hiring aircraft privately, was obliged to join.
OAT is not a 'club' - it doesn't need to be since it does not employ instructors with a UK PPL. Back when PPL training was undertaken at OAT (and prior to JAR), they had a club, called the Oxford Flyers, which anyone undergoing PPL training, or hiring aircraft privately, was obliged to join.
The same applies to ATPL holders.
Well, look under the CPL section of Schedule 8, Para 3a and it states the same wording:
What relevance does this have to licensed airfields?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, in Schedule 8 of the ANO 2005, under the UK CPL(A), paragraph 3(a) states "unless his licence includes an instrument rating (aeroplane), fly such an aeroplane on any scheduled journey;" and under the JAA CPL(A) the same paragraph reads "fly as pilot in command on a flight for the purpose of public transport unless he complies with the requirements of paragraph 1.960(a)(1) and (2) of Section 1 of JAR-OPS 1;"
What relevance does this have to licensed airfields?
What relevance does this have to licensed airfields?
(2) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (7), he shall be entitled to fly as pilot in command of an aeroplane of a type or class on which he is so qualified and which is specified in an aircraft rating included in the licence when the aeroplane is engaged on a flight for any purpose whatsoever.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't you just love the ANO
Not only do you need to know how to fly it also helps if you are a barrister or high court Judge.
Rest assured it is possible to fly from an unlicensed airfield and safely conduct an ab initio training flight whilst staying within the laws of the land.
Not only do you need to know how to fly it also helps if you are a barrister or high court Judge.
Rest assured it is possible to fly from an unlicensed airfield and safely conduct an ab initio training flight whilst staying within the laws of the land.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel the need for some reassurance. 
The para (4) bit in Schedule 8 is left over from the good old days before JAR when one needed a type rating for every aircraft one was going to fly for hire or reward. If, for example one held type ratings on the PA28 and PA34 one could instruct and test on those types wherever and whenever one liked. The instructor rating, on the other hand, would, for example, be endorsed for 'Group A and B' and one could instruct on any aircraft in those groups, for which one didn't hold a type rating, only within the 'flying club' restriction.
Since the advent of JAR and Class Ratings, the 'flying club' restriction is no longer relevant to FIs who hold professional licences, who can instruct within or without a flying club on any aeroplane for which they hold the relevant class (or type) rating.
Since the advent of JAR and Class Ratings, the 'flying club' restriction is no longer relevant to FIs who hold professional licences, who can instruct within or without a flying club on any aeroplane for which they hold the relevant class (or type) rating.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Billiebob
I realise that's how it works in practice, but for the life of me I can't read the ANO and come to that same conclusion. Maybe I lack the lawyer's brain, but it seems to me that you can pick bits of the regulations and draw many different conclusions.
Is it written anywhere in plain(er) english, a la LASORS?
I realise that's how it works in practice, but for the life of me I can't read the ANO and come to that same conclusion. Maybe I lack the lawyer's brain, but it seems to me that you can pick bits of the regulations and draw many different conclusions.
Is it written anywhere in plain(er) english, a la LASORS?