Yes, but if you are charging and not instructing under those definitions it is then a public transport flight so has to be done under an AOC as has already been stated, and what do you say, having done the trial lesson, when the person says "I want to continue, how do I write it in my logbook?"

Which circumstances include the 'trial lesson' which is given for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant of a (private) pilot's licence.

There is nothing to stop any pilot giving flying instruction and there never will be. Define 'flying instruction'? If a pilot without an instructors rating says to a passenger who is learning to fly, "you have a go and fly it straight and level" and offers advice and corrects errors he is clearly giving 'flying instruction', what the passenger will not be able to do is to count that instruction for the grant or renewal of a licence or rating(in my view)

Maybe so - but it cannot be done, and sold as, a trial lesson

Foxmoth and BillieBob.

Article 80 does not give a definition of 'flight instruction'. It simply says that certain types of flight instruction can only be carried out by Flight Instructors. Any other type of flight instruction can be carried out by any pilot qualified to fly that particular type of aircraft, except for 'Differences Training' and the requirement to fly a 'training flight of at least one hour' for Class Rating Revalidation, both of which specifically require a Flight Instructor.

Flying training is Aerial Work, not Public Transport and so does not require an AOC.

So, as long as it is made clear that the flight time cannot be counted towards a licence or rating, then a 'Trial Lesson'/'Introductory Flying lesson', whatever you want to call it, or any other type of flying training for that matter, such as aerobatics, type conversion within a Class Rating, etc, can be conducted by any pilot with a Professional Licence qualified to fly that type of aircraft, and furthermore, if no payment is given or promissed in relation to the flight, by a PPL holder!

The 'Instructor' in such cases would log the flight time as P1 and the 'Student' as Pu/t.

MJ <<<<<< Runs for cover!! :ooh::ouch:

Quite right however; to qualify as Flying Training, it is subject to the conditions of Article 80. If the pilot is not an instructor the flight is not Instruction for the purpose of obtaining a licence and can theretofore only be either a Private Flight or a Public Transport Flight. Which of these is determined by the financial arrangements. Unless the pilot contributes his share it is "Public Transport"

On a private flight there is nothing to prevent a pilot showing a passenger how to fly, they remain a passenger and the pilot is PIC. In the case of a Public Transport Flight that requires an AOC then no instruction can take place because a passenger is not permitted to touch the controls.

As you have mentioned aerobatics, any pilot can teach another pilot aerobatics however; both are qualified pilots, the flight can be classified as private and either pilot could legally pay for the flight. What mutually consenting adults do on that flight is up to them.

What would be the point of giving free introductory flights?

No it isnt! :ugh:

I'm neither advocating nor criticising these things, but the original poster asked if it was legal, and so far, I can't find anything that says it isnt!

MJ

To use you own quote; that is the only type of Flight Instruction recognised by the ANO. Any other unofficial teaching on a flight that is paid for by the passenger is subject to Article 260To be an Aerial Work Flight it must comply with Art 259(3) and to give the instruction referred to you must comply with Art 80 as no form of unofficial instruction is recognised.
A flight conducted by a non instructor where the passenger pays to receive unofficial instruction is a Public Transport flight as defined in Art 260! The provider is subject to Art 14. Unless you comply with Art 14 the flight is illegal.

To determine what type of flight it is you must start by asking the question is it Public Transport Is it exempt by qualifying as Aerial Work, and if it fits neither case it could be a Private flight.

After 2015, that will only be true for non-EASA aircraft. Aerobatics conducted on EASA aircraft will be subject to the requirements of part-FCL.800.......

Mach Jump, I don't know what point you're trying to make. Whopity has explained the regulations with total clarity; there is no legal way that a PPL holder without an FI Rating can conduct 'trial lessons' or 'air experience flights' which have been paid for by the 'passenger'.

Never say never....

Presumably, only at an approved training organisation!

in other words for the grant or renewal of a rating or licence-same thing!

BEagle.

I think that if you go back and read my posts more carefully you will find that I never said that PPL holders can give instruction that has been paid for.

The point I'm trying to make is that people shouldn't say things are illegal just because they dont like them, without being able to point to a rule/law/regulation that has been broken. I have examined all the ANO references that Whopity has given, and there is nothing there, or anywhere else that I can find, that says only training flights that are to be counted for the issue of a Licence or Rating are recognised as Aerial Work.


BillieBob.

The new EASA Part FCL is a whole new can of worms! Lets not go there just now as the new rules dont apply, yet.

Whopity.

I think you need to read the ANO more objectively, and try to avoid reading into it things you would like to be there.


MJ

Well said MJ!

Reminds me of the argument of how does a training captain in an airline give flying instruction if he doesnt hold an instructors rating.

ANO and Regulations
 

The ANO and related regulations have largely been driven and drafted by the CAA, with an archaic (and lazy) rollover from very early legislation and HM Forces processes and procedures, some of which have no relevance to civil aviation (Flying Order Book??) I have posted previously that a coach and horses (to use a diminishing legal maxim) could be driven through the legislation in a large number of cases, and the cases quoted by Whopity are worrying in terms of fairness and natural justice. The CAA should not be investigating, directing and undertaking its own prosecutions; Many defendants are almost scared into guilty pleas, and the CAA cases in terms of fines and costs bear no relationship vis-a-vis equally or more serious non-aviation cases. The original post asked what appeared to be a simple question, but has raised a myriad of ideas and interpretation. That is not good law, and it is not good governance by the Authority. Contravention of aviation law at any level should not be condoned or tolerated, but lets make the rules clear, and processes fair.

I can't argue with that but, nonetheless, it has been adopted by the EU Parliament and will become law from April next year. It would be a mistake to bury one's head in the sand just because one doesn't like the content - that would be the equivalent of saying things are illegal just because one doesn't like them.

Justmaybe

I couldn't agree with you more, the ANO is an appalling document which appears to have deteriorated further in the latest amendment when the entire document was rearranged to facilitate easier change-over to EASA. Fines vary from court to court and the enforcers know that one court may impose a much lesser fine than another, but that is outside their control and which court depends on where the offence was committed.

Touche` BillieBob!

But as a mere mortal, I can only deal with one set of daft regulations at a time.

MJ

I honestly can't believe that this thread has gone on so long.

Unless you are trained and qualified to do so, you CAN NOT give a person any type of flight training/instruction!:ugh: Instructors are specially trained to do the job!

Of course the CAA does not sit in the back seat when you are flying around for fun and won't notice if you let your passenger touch the controls. But if an accident occurs and it is proven (perhaps by back seat passengers) that the passenger was flying you'd probably have a mess to handle with the insurance companies, besides the CAA/FAA or whoever.

In the German regs it is quite clearly defined (§5 LuftVG / § 60 No. 3 LuftVG; if I find an English version I'll post it).