Requirement to fly a Trial Lesson
LA has summed it up in a nutshell.
You could not really compare the risks as they would be assessed on a different scale. As a fare paying passenger, your expectations are of a totally safe flight with a highly qualified pilot in an aircraft maintained to public transport standards (hence the cost). As a potential student attending a flying club your expectations are one of adventure, a new experience with a marginally higher element of risk, you will fly a club aircraft, where any risk of allowing you to control it is mitigated by having a fully trained and qualified instructor. If the flight were conducted as an AOC operation (Pleasure Flight) then the passenger would not be permitted to touch the controls.
I thought that the risks involved in allowing a novice to handle the controls would be much greater than if they were just a passenger.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IN-2014/093
I've heard on the grapevine that an instructor rating is not necessarily required to carry a member of the public for their first flight when operating within a club environment.
Does anyone know anything about this?
Does anyone know anything about this?
see IN-2014/093
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&i d=6254
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Having briefly read through 093, I sincerely hope that the financial restrictions only apply to flights conducted by PPLs or LAPLs. We sell Trial Lessons at approximately the same price as a regular training flight; we certainly couldn't afford to take a punt on letting a PPL do a flight at marginal cost (i.e. just the cost of the fuel etc) on the off-chance that the punter might come back and do some more flying with an instructor. Incidentally, we DO meet the 'not-for-profit' requirements in our Articles.
It isn't clear (to me) whether or not 'Introductory Flights' conducted by an Instructor have to meet this 'marginal cost' requirement. We try to treat every flight as if the participant is trying out the activity to see if they would like to do more (which is what I as an instructor really want) but of course it doesn't suit everybody. We allow an observer in the back of our C172, but we don't charge anything more for this. In the case of a 14 year old lad I took this week, I was pleased his mum came along. What do the rest of you do about a 14 year-old in a C152?
TheOddOne
It isn't clear (to me) whether or not 'Introductory Flights' conducted by an Instructor have to meet this 'marginal cost' requirement. We try to treat every flight as if the participant is trying out the activity to see if they would like to do more (which is what I as an instructor really want) but of course it doesn't suit everybody. We allow an observer in the back of our C172, but we don't charge anything more for this. In the case of a 14 year old lad I took this week, I was pleased his mum came along. What do the rest of you do about a 14 year-old in a C152?
TheOddOne
TheOddOne
I think this has come about because of what happens in France. An Introductory Flight will not contain any training element, the member of the public up front will not (or at least should not) handle the controls.
Trial lessons carried out by instructors will not change, since they are training flights (during which the prospective student definitely should handle the controls) that count towards licence issue, they are not introductory flights.
I think this has come about because of what happens in France. An Introductory Flight will not contain any training element, the member of the public up front will not (or at least should not) handle the controls.
Trial lessons carried out by instructors will not change, since they are training flights (during which the prospective student definitely should handle the controls) that count towards licence issue, they are not introductory flights.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Methinks it raises more questions than it answers...........
I think this has come about because of what happens in France
I note that all, bar Piper Classique, posters on this Thread are UK based where this has not previously been allowed - It will need time to 'bed in'.
It isn't clear (to me) whether or not 'Introductory Flights' conducted by an Instructor have to meet this 'marginal cost' requirement.... .....at marginal cost (i.e. just the cost of the fuel etc)
If, for example, a one hour lesson costs £150 and one hour of solo hire costs £120 then, as aircraft rental is allowed, charging £120 for an Introductory Flight would seem, to me, to be reasonable (as that is the direct cost of that particular flight). The Pilot, again irrespective of qualifications, would not be able to charge/be paid anything.
An old AIC (so unsure if now superseded by EASA) stated that if the only payment made for a flight was for the services of a pilot then that flight would be deemed to be a private flight - In this case it would not be the only payment - so an AoC would be necessary.
It is emphasised that this can only be undertaken by an ATO or Flying Club but I would worry that some individual pilots, would use this to charge the whole cost of their flying to their passengers.
Unless I missed it, I am surprised that a minimum Medical requirement is not stated for the PIC of such flights. I am assuming that assessing the experience/competence, and hence suitability, of the pilot is left to the discretion of the ATO/Flying Club
We don't encourage trial lessons for the under fifteens.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do the rest of you do about a 14 year-old in a C152?
We don't encourage trial lessons for the under fifteens.
Call me Mr Cynical if you like, but could this be something to do with the CAA presence at AeroExpo this weekend, and the need for some good news they can point at.
Having said that, perhaps we shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth, and hope that it's just the beginning of an avalanche of deregulation!
MJ
Having said that, perhaps we shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth, and hope that it's just the beginning of an avalanche of deregulation!
MJ
Last edited by Mach Jump; 3rd Jun 2014 at 13:21. Reason: Spelling
I think the new IN is simply a revision of the cost sharing process; it in no way changes the format of a lesson often referred to as a trial lesson, that can only be conducted by an instructor. It does open another gateway to abuse by the unscrupulus as we shall no doubt see.
Perhaps someone should ask them at AeroExpo when they are going to get off their backsides and reissue the Template Manual and the FE Habndbook, both of which are now 2 months late! And give correct answers to more questions in a timely manner!
Perhaps someone should ask them at AeroExpo when they are going to get off their backsides and reissue the Template Manual and the FE Habndbook, both of which are now 2 months late! And give correct answers to more questions in a timely manner!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It opens the way for some schools (or other organisation as defined in the IN) to offer "experience" flights at a lower cost that a proper trial lesson. The problem is that some people will not know the difference between a joy ride with a PPL and a trial lesson with an Instructor and simply go for the cheapest. The market for trial lessons could be seriously damaged and the consequences for ATOs already managing on razor thin margins could be severe.
I suspect that PPLs who do this will let their passengers handle the controls, not just fly them around. The IN does not specifically prohibit this. I see some safety issues around this, especially with aerobatics.
I suspect that PPLs who do this will let their passengers handle the controls, not just fly them around. The IN does not specifically prohibit this. I see some safety issues around this, especially with aerobatics.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies for the mild drift, but did anyone notice the bit about advertising, and unequal sharing of costs in section 3.1 of the CAA information notice?
My interpretation is that advertising a flight outside of a club environment for cost-sharing purposes is now allowed, and that the passengers can pay for ALL direct costs?! I.e. PIC gets a free flight/hour building.
My interpretation is that advertising a flight outside of a club environment for cost-sharing purposes is now allowed, and that the passengers can pay for ALL direct costs?! I.e. PIC gets a free flight/hour building.
All changed now: IN-2014/093: Cost-Sharing, Sailplane Towing, Parachute Dropping, Flying Competitions and Introductory Flights by Private Pilots | Publications | About the CAA
CAA now allowing paid intro flights by PPLs (doesn't even have to be at an ATO!), cost sharing that does not have to have equal amounts and these can be advertised!!
New ways for new days
CAA now allowing paid intro flights by PPLs (doesn't even have to be at an ATO!), cost sharing that does not have to have equal amounts and these can be advertised!!
New ways for new days
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This IN http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Informa...ice2014093.pdf clearly states that the requirement for equal cost sharing is removed.
I can see a can full of worms emerging from this one.
I can see a can full of worms emerging from this one.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I was bought an air experance flight in a Tiger Moth (DJ now sadly crashed with 2 dead RIP) and was allowed to handle stick as had previous experance(a long time before) and went on to get a PPL so the idea works.
