PPL Istruction on own plane
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The words
Just about that, yes.
You won't find anything in the ANO or elsewhere save the requirement for the operation for fare paying passengers etc. (Public Transport). Therefore the 'Standard' certificate of Airworthiness does all else. Insurance, complience, maintenance including the issue of a Certificate of Release to Service are what matters for Ariel Work.
If you should look at the Certificate of Airworthiness issued to your flying club aeroplanes and those issued to a private owner then you will see no difference. But should you wish to undertake Ariel work using the Standard Cert. aircraft then the maintenance must be as Public Transport. i.e undertaken by a Licensed engineer and paperwork issued accordingly. Whopity and Bookworm will no doubt be able to hone down the detail but not many seem to understand the detail, least of all the CAA themselves.
Part of the problem here I believe is that the JAA and now the EASA changes being made take into account the practices in place around europe generally but not those that have existed within the UK. Therefore the changes affect UK law in rather odd ways and make things difficult if not impossible to understand without a lot of head scratching.
You won't find anything in the ANO or elsewhere save the requirement for the operation for fare paying passengers etc. (Public Transport). Therefore the 'Standard' certificate of Airworthiness does all else. Insurance, complience, maintenance including the issue of a Certificate of Release to Service are what matters for Ariel Work.
If you should look at the Certificate of Airworthiness issued to your flying club aeroplanes and those issued to a private owner then you will see no difference. But should you wish to undertake Ariel work using the Standard Cert. aircraft then the maintenance must be as Public Transport. i.e undertaken by a Licensed engineer and paperwork issued accordingly. Whopity and Bookworm will no doubt be able to hone down the detail but not many seem to understand the detail, least of all the CAA themselves.
Part of the problem here I believe is that the JAA and now the EASA changes being made take into account the practices in place around europe generally but not those that have existed within the UK. Therefore the changes affect UK law in rather odd ways and make things difficult if not impossible to understand without a lot of head scratching.
Anyone point to the relevant bits of the ANO?
Art 15 Technical Log
Art 86/88 & Schedule 10 about Documents and their production
All of these refer to "Aerial Work aircraft".
This is all a real mess at the moment. Roll on EASA.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The dilemna
FlyerGuy
Yes you can do as you suggest if all things are as you state. Forget 'Public Transport', it is not relevant in this instance anymore. You are undertaking 'Aerial Work'. The 'Certificate of Release to Service' confirms that the aircraft is fit for the purpose, such a certificate is not required for private use. A public transport C of A is required if you intend carrying paying passengers.
You should consider Insurance. Ensure that you have 'public liabilty' insurance, a 'Hold harmless and waiver of subragation' clause should be entered into the aircraft policy in your favour. There will not normally be an additional charge for doing this. The insertion will ensure two things should there be an accident;
1) you as instructor will be a third party benificiary
2) the clause creates clarity with regard to whom/what policy (liability) pays. i.e. it will be the aircraft insurer.
3) The Public Liability insurance protects you against your personal liabilties to your student and members of the public.
You and your friend may find with all this that things ain't so cheap after all. Some instructors, acting as individuals as you intend, have reported on this site, that they have had difficulty obtaining public liabilty insurance. Take care for I personally know an instructor who 'moonlighted' from his club so not covered by the club insurance policies. The privately owned aircraft hit trees shortly after becoming airborne. The aircraft insurance paid out for the aircraft. The owner received some compensation for his sons injuries. The instructor who is now lame for life and walks only with a stick, was not insured and received NOWT! Beware therefore of being the subject of somebody elses savings. Think what the benefit is to you.
A car without wheels will be cheaper than with - fact of life. It dosn't require rocket science to work that out.
Yes you can do as you suggest if all things are as you state. Forget 'Public Transport', it is not relevant in this instance anymore. You are undertaking 'Aerial Work'. The 'Certificate of Release to Service' confirms that the aircraft is fit for the purpose, such a certificate is not required for private use. A public transport C of A is required if you intend carrying paying passengers.
You should consider Insurance. Ensure that you have 'public liabilty' insurance, a 'Hold harmless and waiver of subragation' clause should be entered into the aircraft policy in your favour. There will not normally be an additional charge for doing this. The insertion will ensure two things should there be an accident;
1) you as instructor will be a third party benificiary
2) the clause creates clarity with regard to whom/what policy (liability) pays. i.e. it will be the aircraft insurer.
3) The Public Liability insurance protects you against your personal liabilties to your student and members of the public.
You and your friend may find with all this that things ain't so cheap after all. Some instructors, acting as individuals as you intend, have reported on this site, that they have had difficulty obtaining public liabilty insurance. Take care for I personally know an instructor who 'moonlighted' from his club so not covered by the club insurance policies. The privately owned aircraft hit trees shortly after becoming airborne. The aircraft insurance paid out for the aircraft. The owner received some compensation for his sons injuries. The instructor who is now lame for life and walks only with a stick, was not insured and received NOWT! Beware therefore of being the subject of somebody elses savings. Think what the benefit is to you.
A car without wheels will be cheaper than with - fact of life. It dosn't require rocket science to work that out.
