Unlikely, as there is no mention of the subject in the Aircrew Regulation.

Try explaining it when it all goes wrong.
 

The whole issue of trial or introductory flights is fraught with unnecessary complication. The CAA legal department issued a guide as what may or may not constitute a trial flying lesson, and whether it was (then) deemed to be public transport or something else. The interpretation and definitions in the ANO verge on being ridiculous, and are unhelpful. To cut to the chase however, the holder of a professional pilots licence without a current FI Rating cannot provide a trial or introductory flying lesson. Equally, a pilot holding such licence and rating cannot provide a 'pleasure' or 'sightseeing' flight for reward/remuneration unless conducted in accordance with a valid AOC. The advice for Pilot Instructors is be very careful about the exact nature of the flight you are undertaking. When it all goes okay, you wont hear anymore, but the day when an incident occurs you will soon find out whether people were on board for a trial lesson or something different. You will be doing the explaining. The devil is in the detail.

Actually, there is very little to explain. If a flight is conducted in a flying club and the pilot is an instructor then potentially any flight could legally be a lesson and it is up to the authorities to prove it isn't. That is very difficult, which explains why certain "non instructors" manage to get away with illegal lessons. Unless you are carrying out blatantly illegal activity, you have nothing to worry about except perhaps instructor liability, which few carry. You have 10 times more chance of being sued by the family of the deceased than for wrong doing by the authorities.

A number of years ago, I was CFI at a school and we had a TL/experience flight, (whatever you want to call it), suffer an engine failure and have to carry out a forced landing. There were two people in the back seats as well as the "student", there was a full aircraft emergency response from the police/fire/ambulance and no injuries to the occupants, but substantial aircraft damage.
We had no problems at all from the police, CAA or AAIB (DfT), once we had established all the paperwork was in order.
Once the 48 hours of media frenzy had passed, all the issues were from our insurers and the NWNF bottom-feeding legal industry. There was initially some concern regarding the status of the rear-seat passengers, which I was fortunately able to put to rest by producing the guidance from the CAA mentioned by justmaybe. That was followed by well over a year of grief from the passenger's lawyers. They had mysteriously developed a host of medical problems (since being released injury-free by the paramedics:rolleyes:) and psychological trauma, which was apparently ruining their lives and could only be relieved by ££££££'s.:*
It also transpired that they had also lost or had damaged in the crash, a multitude of expensive cameras, watches, phones and jewellery. IIRC the insurers settled out of court for a few thousand per person.:ugh:

What he said!

How can a professional pilot (or even a Private Pilot for that matter!) not know this stuff?

I have conducted both (being both an ATPL holder and and Instructor) most of these Trial Lessons are sold, and conducted, as lessons - i.e. the purchaser receiving a briefing and then some airborne instructing including hands on time in the aircraft. this is what the punter buys and normally what he gets. If he buys a Pleasure Flight this is different, no briefing other than a safety brief and no instruction other than "Look to your right/left" -No safer, you get less from it,often a shorter flight - Oh, and it costs a lot more as well, partly due to that AOC that you so want everyone to have!

I think you are missing the point. A person who hires an aircraft for public transport has a reasonable expectation of arriving safely. Like any form of public transport, a taxi, a bus, a train or an aircraft there have to be certain safeguards in place to ensure that unnecessary dangers have been eliminated, hence an AOC. A Flying club is a group of private individuals who are prepared to accept that their activity may have an element of risk attached and can make their mind up whether or not to accept it. The AOC holder has to pay for the certification process whereas the flying club is left to their own devices.

The unsuspecting punter who comes in the door for a trial flight has no concept of the different levels of supervision and certification, but probably assumes they are the same. If you go scuba diving or bungee jumping you will be made aware of the dangers, maybe flying clubs should follow a similar process.

In practice there is no reason why a flying club flight should not have a comparable level of safety to an AOC operation however; it has not been subject to the same level of scrutiny and cost, and there remains an uncertified element of risk.

Whopity I do not think Alister is missing the point. Some schools/clubs go to a good deal of effort to inform 'punters' exactly what is involved in a trial or introductory flying lesson, including life insurance implications and inherent risks, whereas others may take a more cavalier attitude and in reality wrap up a 'pleasure' flight as a trial lesson, putting as many people as possible in the a/c, and in some cases imposing additional charges for doing so. In real terms the level of safety vis-a-vis a trial lesson flight and a pleasure flight conducted under a restricted AOC are probably in equilibrium. If an accident should occur resulting in death or injury in either case, they will both be judged broadly similar - duty of care/risk assessment/reasoanble foresight etc etc. In this limited area of aerial activity (localised pleasure flights/trial lessons) there is a cogent argument that both should be subject to regulation, but probably not to the level and expense required for a (restricted) AOC. There is no reason why a simplified system could not be put in place that would adequately provide good advice, guidance and direction; Instead we have an unfortunate mish-mash of loose guidance that attends trial or introductory lessons in particular. The Authority could and should take a more proactive stance, and not wait to be forced into action by accident or incident in the future.

then it is blatantly illegal and should be dealt with under the current legislation that is quite adequate. As always proof is the issue and changing legislation will not change that. Some people seem to need instructions on how to do everything, no doubt a result of the Nanny State we find ourselves in! The current guidance is quite clear and with the garbage that's about to descend on us from Europe, there is no reason why anyone should waste time making more unenforceable rules.

Whopity I don't wholly disagree, but what I am saying is that at the level of introductory lessons/pleasure flights the legislation is such that you could drive a coach and horses through it. Both the interpretation provisions of the ANO and the guidance on aerial work/public transport produced by the Authority are anything but clear, and completely out of kilter with other EU and non EU countries. What I am saying is that with a little contemporary thinking it would be possible to have clear and simple regulatory provisions for operations at this level. That is noting to do with the nanny state - completely the opposite.

Is there a safety issue? If not; its not the CAAs job to produce rules and guidance on how the industry should operate. I'm pleased to say we have a tradition of having reasoned regulation in this country unlike mainland Europe where they are rule obsessed, and then half the States ignore them.

Whopity, as it happens I do not believe there is a safety issue. I think the professionals flying trial flying lessons or pleasure flights have an enviable safety record and, by and large, do an excellent job. I do however feel that if the Authority of its own volition seeks to draft legislation in terminology that is largely archaic (reminiscent of that found in the 19th century statutes) then it should provide clear and unequivocal guidance. That apart, it displays an uncanny knack of turning that which should be simple into bizarre complex. Let me give an example. Flying club provinding trial lessons wishes to do pleasure flying. Just look at the process and cost of an AtoA AOC. I am not anti-authority, but i am extremely frustrated with the Authority's readiness to embrace the highly questionable dictats from EASA on the one hand, and its inability to understand and provide workable solutions for GA operations in the sphere alluded to. I apologise for this starting to drift from the OP, but it does open a much wider debate than was perhaps intended.

no instructors rating, then NO trial lessons!

In Germany it is legal to give pleasure flights in aircraft with 4 seats or less and even be paid for it, which is a big financial help for clubs. "Officially" the clubs are not allowed to advertise it or make a profit from it. If they do, then it's considered commercial and you need an AOC.

Some AOC holders have taken clubs to court because they felt the clubs were too much "competition", i.e. stealing potential customers from them. :ugh:

Especially balloonists misuse the above mentioned legal use for flights in balloons officially certified for not more then 4 persons. But, as with club pleasure flights, it's all very hard to prove.

I was once an instructor at a school with an AOC. At the time I didn't have a CPL, so I could conduct training flights but NOT pleasure flights! I did find that a bit odd, but that's the way it was. But, as already mentioned, the other way around CPL with no instructor for training flights, is a BIG no-no! :=

And I have also heard that EASA will kill the possibility for clubs to continue doing the above mentioned pleasure flights.

Sadly, they have no choice, some States may turn a blind eye but that's not the UK way.That is not the CAA's job, their role is to regulate for safety nothing else! Under EASA that function is largely being removed, leaving them with no tools to perform their primary task.EASA is responsible for the worst piece of legislation in the history of aviation; it should not come as any surprise as it is typical of all the other garbage that emanates from the EP.

I'm surprised that no one has yet attempted to point out where, exactly, it says that training, other than for the issue of a licence or rating, has to be conducted by a Flight Instructor. Is it possible that there is no such requirement?

MJ

It doesn't say it anywhere however; it is "flying training" that is exempted from the requirement to hold an AOC, so if its not Flying Training as defined in the ANO, then it can only be a Private Flight where the pilot must pay his share, or its Public Transport and requires an AOC. The choice is simple!

The 'trial lesson' is, by accepted definition, a lesson in a course leading to the issue of a PPL and an FI rating is, therefore, required to conduct it. In any case this will all be resolved, in the UK at least, on 1 July next year when Annex 1 to the Aircrew Regulation (a.k.a. Part-FCL) is implemented. Thereafter, nobody may give any flight instruction in an aircraft unless they hold an appropriate instructor certificate.

So, what is the ANO definition of flying training? And do you have an ANO reference?

I am sure you are quite capable of looking it up but if not:
If you don't meet the above criteria then its not a lesson so back to my previous post.

I think that Article 80 makes my point perfectly. The requirements of para.2 are clearly limited to the circumstances described in para.1.

MJ