Trial lessons without an instructor rating
 

Can a professional pilot with no flight instructor rating, who works at a flight school, (but not as an instructor), conduct trial flights for the school?

In other words, "can a pilot who is not an instructor give flying lessons?". What do you think?

the "trial lessons" bit gives it away a bit no?

why would bloggs pay when he/she can't log any time?
how is the school going to charge for it? as a pleasure flight? will that be covered under the school's aoc and/or insurance?

then again i could be completely wrong...who knows.

He can do e.g. tourist flights under an ' A to A ' AOC, but not lessons of any sort.

Which anybody who has passed the air law segments of a professional license should know very well of course.

G

The problem would then come if that person wanted to carry on flying as they couldn't put the flight in their log book. It's one of those things, realistically 45mins in a log book is neither here nor there especially if you're looking at 50+hrs for your average PPL. Not technically correct tho.

bit more of an issue than that Taff. If the CAA got to hear of an operation taking punter's cash in exchange for flights flown by a non-instructor and that organization did not hold an AOC there would be some tricky questions for the Accountable Manager of said organization.

seems like a really good post to emphasise always reading the small print.

"come for a trial lesson at our school*"

*you won't recieve any instruction. you will pay for the hour but not be able to log it. if anyone asks if the flight took place you must respond "negative". you will only touch the controls if the pilot suffers a heart attack (n.b. good luck). if you have any questions then don't expect an answer. thanks for the cash (sucker)

I think we are short changed by our woeful regulator, as these joy rides (which many of them are) can only be done under the guise of "flight training".
IMHO these should be done under an A to A AOC, but generally are not in the UK due to absurd requirements for that piece of paper.
:rolleyes:

In my humble opinion....

The 'trial lesson', or what we call it in the trade - excercise three is actually part of the PPL syllabus where the prospective student can have an experience of the sensations of being on board and in control of a light aircraft for the first time... The Air Experience Flight.. Some people are bought these as gifts etc..

I normally approch this with the normal safety brief but no explanation except for a brief description of the controls etc. I usually brief the prospective student on the actions for takoff then talk him or her through it as they do it. They will do as much flying as they want during this 'lesson' and I will normally attempt to get them to do as much of the landing as possible.

This flight is usually any flying clubs front window and if undertaken as above can't see what the problem is. You can't expect prospective students to indulge in spending money before they try the flying out - god knows they may not like it!!

As to CPLs doing it without FI --- don't think so!!! Spend the money get and FI!!!

Once EASA comes in next year trial lessons are banned. They are to be called "Introductory Lesson".

A CPL without FI rating cannot conduct a trial lesson as it is an introductory flight. It would count as a PPL hire and the CPL should pay 50% of the cost.

Which particular part of the EU Regulation 'bans' trial lessons?

There is surely a big difference between "banned" and "the name will be changed".

G

Trial Flight and Introductory Lesson are just fancy names used to attract customers who are not initially coming with the intention of learning to fly.

A flying lesson is exactly that no matter what else you might call it, and can only be given by a person holding a Flight Instructor rating. If a person pays for a flight that is not a lesson, then its public transport and needs to be conducted under the auspices of an AOC. Flying clubs are exempt from the requirement to have an AOC solely for the purpose of giving lessons. Private flights are another issue, people who walk through the door and pay for a flight are not going on a private flight. Ask yourself a very simple question, would the flight still go if the said person did not pay to go on it!

There are numerous reports of unqualified pilots giving trial lessons, if they are caught the CAA will prosecute them if they can get enough evidence. Usually the punter doesn't complain, so its down to people in the industry to report such activity.

Different countries have different rules. In France an aeroclub can allow members with PPL and over 200 hours P1, 30 hours in the last 12 months, and a class two medical within the last year (whatever the pilot's age) to conduct air experience flights as long as this does not represent more than ten per cent of the club's total hours on its SEP fleet. The aircraft can be full, back seats occupied, and the club can charge any rate it chooses, no payment to the pilot. This is in addition to any air experience flights sold at an airshow run by the club. Not saying if it is good or bad, just pointing out that not everyone has the same rules. The time can't count towards the passenger's licence if he or she decides to do a PPL.

:} :8: :yuk: :p :)... Very Funny ......... Oh wait you appear to be serious :rolleyes:

Would a professional pilot, who works at a flight school, but is not an instructor, conduct trial flights for the school? A professional pilot will know the bounds of his privilege to fly for hire, and fly within them....

Why would a "professional" pilot who is not an instructor work at a flying school? This would imply that he is either the owner, a ground instructor or perhaps the cleaner!

Because there's a job to be done and he's still looking for a flying job presumably.

G

Almost as good as the FI without a CPL getting paid a relative fortune for washing aircraft and answering the phones. :eek:

Anyone got a reference regarding EASA's potential line on trail lessons?

do you mean trail or trial...

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