Or even to keep Flying schools out of the equation.

PPL holder takes a plane for a mate to be serviced. 2 hours flying without paying anything.

Arguing with FI's isn't going to change anything its the CFI's in the schools who make the rules not us. .

The flying order book states that these people can do it, all we can presume is that the ops inspector who signed them off last check knows what they are talking about.

MJ

PS why don't you contact someone in the belgrano and get them to send a notice out to all CFI's. Its alot better than trying to convince aload of under payed FI's they should go and tell there boss he is talking !!!!e

MJ,

Going back to your statement regarding the 90 day rule. There is no requirement for the pilot who "needs the practice" to log anything other than the fact that they completed 3 take-offs and landings. Thus another PPL (who could be say the owner of the aircraft) can sit in the right seat and log the flight as P1. The only requirements are that a) The non-current pilot was the "sole manipulator of the controls" and that the "Owner" was not paid for sitting in the right seat.

---

As for aerobatic instruction - Beagle may be barking up the wrong tree unless it is known that the FI providing the said aerobatic instructional flight has a UK licence. People who hold JAA licences from other countries do not have a "no aerobatic instruction" restriction. However, one would have to say that any FI worth their salt would not consider teaching an aerobatic course unless the had completed the required training. But a one-off trial lesson may be something different (provided that they can do safe aerobatics) subject to insurance limitations.

PPLs doing Club checkouts is very much dependent on the individual club set-up. Beagle agrees that in a multi-owner group, there is no problem.

I believe that the only problems arrise in a "Club" environment. "Club" being the profit making commercial enterprise version of a club found in the UK.

In the UK "Club" the aircraft are operated for profit. If pilot X is not current then they are unable to fly. Thus the club can not profit. If the CFI tells a PPL to fly with pilot X then the club is making a profit from that PPL's flying (even if it is as a passenger). That makes it public transport and illegal.

Another way to look at the checkout regardless of the "club" set-up is - Can one seriously make a club rule that a pilot is not competent to fly the aircraft if they have not flown during the previous 28 days - then turn round and send them flying with a passenger? Clearly, the two are not compatible.

Regards,

DFC

Vector Victor,

As an experienced Instructor/Examiner and having several years ago set up and run my own sizeable Flying School, I am appalled.

The Owner/Operator does not deserve to be in business. Please do the right thing and call the CAA on 01293-567171. Ask to speak to training standards and the inspector who checks this School.

Mad Jock made a very good point about the Insurance aspect. If non qualified personel are carrying out trial lessons it's simple. THERE IS NO INSURANCE!.

It is your duty to protect the public from this type of operator, or you may have to live with your conscience should an accident arise

But we aren't discussing pilots who are non-current legally. We're discussing pilots who haven't flown for a bit, who the club or insurance company requires to fly with a safety pilot for their own private reasons. The PPL who is the safety pilot is a passenger. And nowhere have I seen it stated that passengers can't be paid. It's no different to my offering you an aerial lift to London, if you need to get there for your work, and your company paying you an hourly rate while you're travelling. Or, for an even more precise analogy, you offer to let me fly you to London in your aircraft, the condition being that I give you the lift.


No, in theory they're not. But in practice those pilots who haven't flown for 28 days comprise everyone from very new PPLs to people who've been flying for years. For instance, just after I finished my CPL(H) flying course I ended up not flying for 5 weeks. Was I seriously non-current, after over 100 rotary flying hours in a year, finishing with an intensive course and test? But the club's insurance rules were that I had to fly with an instructor before I could self-fly hire. So if the CFI and/or insurance allow such people to fly with a "passenger" just to check that things are OK, it sounds like common sense to me. Now of course, that could be mis-used, but that's not the point.

Let's not mix up two issues here. Sending pilots who haven't flown for a while up with another PPL may or may not be sensible. But to repeat myself, I SIMPLY CANNOT SEE HOW IT CAN BE ILLEGAL. And if it is, I want to know where I can see that in writing.

See the ANO Section 1 Part XI:


valuable consideration which falls within paragraph (10)(b);
is a contribution to the direct costs of the flight otherwise payable by the pilot in command; and
(ii) (aa) no more than 4 persons (including the pilot) are carried on such a flight;
(bb) the proportion which such contribution bears to the total direct costs of the flight shall not exceed the proportion which the number of persons carried on the flight (excluding the pilot) bears to the number of persons carried on the flight (including the pilot);
(cc) no information concerning the flight shall have been published or advertised prior to the commencement of the flight other than, in the case of an aircraft operated by a flying club, advertising wholly within the premises of such a flying club in which case all the persons carried on such a flight who are aged 18 years or over shall be members of that
flying club; and

(dd) no person acting as a pilot on such a flight shall be employed as a pilot by or be a party to a contract for the provision of services as a pilot with the operator of the aircraft being flown on the flight.

There's a lot more, suggest you download CAP393 in .pdf format from the CAA website. If there are 4 of you including the pilot flying on a private flight, the passengers may cost share but between them must pay no more than 3/4 of the direct costs. So you can't get the 3 of them to pay 1/3 of the cost each, for example, with the pilot paying nothing. Para (dd) could perhaps be taken to apply to the non-FI/CRI PPL holder 'conducting' the 'check' in that he/she must be 'acting as a pilot' because he/she has been selected as such by the CFI in order to conduct the 'check'. It might therefore be construed that he is acting as a party to an implied contract for the provision of the service of a check pilot with the operator of the aircraft (the hirer) being flown on the flight.

But then again, it may not.

Far better to stay totally legal rather than sailing into muddy and unclear waters; if you use only authorised FIs for the purpose of any check ride - whether mandatory or voluntary - you will avoid any possible doubt.

Back to the thread, the illegal public transport activities of the club referred to in the original post must not be allowed to continue. You must make those involved realise this.

Its a sticky one that DFC.

You have to have logged 3 landings in the last 90days to carry pax.

So if the pilot went up solo no probs they are P1.

If the owner insisted they wanted to see the pilot fly yes the owner then logs P1 and checks the pilot out to there satisfaction. The legalitys of this are under discussion in fact its worse because the owner will presumably charge full whack to the pilot which means they aren't sharing the costs etc. But unless the owner of the plane is a FI the pilot cannot log this session at all. Which means the pilot dosn't have 3 takeoffs and landings logged. So they then must go up solo to log the P1 to meet this requirement.

MJ

BEagle

The para you quote is tacked on to the exclusion which allows cost sharing for private flights. Since no cost sharing is taking place for the checkride in question -- the renter is PIC and pays the cost of the flight in full, carrying the check pilot for free -- (dd) is not relevant.

I don't think there's any doubt that if the check pilot holds a CPL (with or without FI rating) then the check ride is legal. Likewise, if the check pilot holds a PPL and is not paid, directly or indirectly, for the flight. The sticky area is where the check pilot holds a PPL and is employed by the club, and therefore it could be argued that he is receiving remuneration for the flight.

The paragraph (dd) above is required to prevent the following situation: A club rents out a PA28 for £200/hr, to be shared between 4 occupants. The PIC happens to be an instructor employed by the club, and receives remuneration of £70/hr for making the flight, but pays £50/hr, his 25% contribution to cost of the flight. Et voila: air taxi operation by the back door... :)

Of course none of this affects the status of trial lessons by non-instructors (CPL or not) which are clearly illegal before they leave the starting gate.

I'm not sure though that even a CPL holding non FI/CRI could conduct this flight legally as it would surely be construed as non-instructional 'aerial work' and need to be under some form of operator's certificate?

'Being paid' for flying isn't the whole situation. For example, the attempts by some to employ well-paid 'gardeners' to cut the grass outside the club house once per week but just happen to be PPL holders with FI ratings has been tried on in the past....

I agree with your explanation of the rationale behind the cost-sharing restrictions.

As I've said before, there are plenty of FIs and FI(R)s available to do any amount of 'trial lessons' and 'check rides' for general club work - so clubs should darn well use them and keep on the right side of the law.

(Private owner group internal policies are a different matter, I grant you. So long as no dodgy deals are agreed, of course!)

With respect to the post that started this thread. Any club which uses PPL's to teach what is meant to be the initial lesson plan of the PPL sylabus is operating so far beyond the pale it simply must be reported to the authorities.

With respect to the further discussion of currency check rides I think it is important to remember why Flying Clubs have currency requirements. It is to ensure that renter pilots continue to be safe to fly. I would suggest this determination is far from black and white and in fact currency check rides require quite a bit of discrimination to be able to extrapolate flying skills demonstrated in a short flight into a determination the pilot will likely be able to safely deal with any possible contingency he/she may encounter.

In my case I did a few currency rides as a CPL before getting my instructor rating. In retrospect I really had no idea what I was looking for. My Club stopped the practice of non instructors doing checkouts after a renter pilot crashed a club aircraft the day after his checkout by a non instructor CPL club member. In a perfect world these checks should be done by the most experienced instructors as they have the broad experience that will recognize the difference between a pilot who is rusty but safe and one who is heading for a potential accident.

Another point no one has mentioned is the ability of instructors to correct bad habits. I can think of many small items I have bought up in check ride debriefs . A lot are not dangerous practices but small items that unchecked will cause undue wear and tear on the aircraft. I do not think most PPL's can do this.

Finally while this might sound self serving, I think there is a world of difference between a good pilot and a good instructor. I did not appreciate the difference untill I took my QFI training. I thought because I was a good CPL pilot, instructing could not be that hard. It did not take long to realise how wrong I was.

:uhoh:

I have a question.

Suppose a pilot lets his/ her instructors rating lapse due to moving into another area of flying, then years later becomes involved in training pilots in type specific aircraft.

Is the quality of instruction lacking because the training pilot no longer holds a valid instructors rating?

Chuck E.

In the Brave New World of JAA-land, such a person would probably be a Type Rating Instructor rather than a Flight Instructor. Certainly so on multi-pilot aeroplanes.

Hence "Mr PBY" would be a PBY TRI; he wouldn't teach the 'big cows, small cows' stuff nor would he need to. But he'd be an acknowledged specialist on converting pilots onto the PBY. Lucky people! As to 'quality' of the instruction given - that's down to the individual TRI.

The rating qualification test would be carried out by a Type Rating Examiner (TRE).

I can see what your getting at Chuck and yes you can see a difference.

The line trainers, TRI's and TRE's who have instructed from zero hours are very different to the ones that moved sideways into it later on in there careers.

I prefer the ones that have instructed SEP, you know what they are trying to do most of the time and you both talk the same lingo.

MJ

Concerning "check rides", isn't this getting a bit over the top? These are required by clubs and insurance companies, not the CAA. Some pilots are very rusty after a month; some - especially if they've been flying for years and years and have loads of experience - probably not. Some were never much good in the first place. Some could do with an instructor correcting their bad habits anyway. But LEGALLY all of these things are irrelevant. the CAA says they can all fly so long as they do 12 hours in two years plus....etc etc etc. If they own their own aircraft, they can do just that. So while it may be good and desirable and sensible for pilots to do regular flying with an instructor, that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it's legal for them to do a "check" with a non-instructor, or who can distinguish between rustiness and a pilot who shouldn't be flying. And I'm an instructor, and can therefore do checkrides, and I'm damned sure I wouldn't be able to tell the difference in all cases. :confused:

MJ,

I do not believe that there is any requirement to log anything on a flight to regain the 3 landings in the past 90 days other than the fact that the 3 landings were completed as sole manipulator of the controls. Thus the problems of what to log the flight as do not arrise. Perhaps the rules need to be changed to require the 3 take-offs and landings to be made as pilot of the aircraft. This could include P1, P1/S and Student (dual).

You do however make a very good point about who should pay for the flight and quite correctly point out that the flight must be cost sharing between both PPLs or paid in full by the pilot in command.

----

When dealing with club checkouts by PPLs one big question which has not yet been asked is - What happens of the PPL who is a passenger discovers that this pilot being "checked" is dangerous. The PPL has no authority to take-over the command of the aircraft and must simply sit there and suffer while their fellow club member does their best to kill them both. If the club member suceeds in doing so, it will and end up in court and I don't think that the Judge could say that the Club met it's obligations under the duty of care.

The same can be said about instructors who fail to report dangerous practices.

We all know that today the majority of "Trial Lessons" are simply public sightseeing flights operating under a loophole. It isn't possible to close that loophole and maintain the ability to attract students into the industry. Thus the CAA has it's hands tied to a certain extent. However, further abuse of the system such as has been reported here can only lead to the CAA putting serious restrictions on training organisations.

I bet that the profits made on "trial lessons" subsidise the training for those that decide to continue their training.

There is also the problem that while instructors are protected by Flight Time Limitations which are designed to prevent accidents caused by fatigue, PPLs are not.

Have we come up with enough reasons why this is illegal, dangerous and must be reported yet?

Regards,

DFC

Whirly, you wrote: So while it may be good and desirable and sensible for pilots to do regular flying with an instructor, that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it's legal for them to do a "check" with a non-instructor, or who can distinguish between rustiness and a pilot who shouldn't be flying. And I'm an instructor, and can therefore do checkrides, and I'm damned sure I wouldn't be able to tell the difference in all cases.

If you, as a FI cannot tell what is safe and what is not, I'm equally 'damned sure' that a totally unqualified non-instructor has even less chance of ascertaining the 'rustiness' of any pilot they might be 'checking'.

Using non-CRI/FIs for any form of 'check' is totally unacceptable. That's the way bad habits get passed on. PFA coaches are all now CRIs at least, so for them to do such flights is fine. But for the CFI's best non-CRI/FI drinking mates to do them? Absolutely not!!

Those who use 'trial flights' as simple revenue gathering joy rides must remember that the CAA keeps a close eye on such things; however, if any PPL non-FI conducts these flights then both the club and the pilot deserve all that the Enforcement Branch can throw at them. Perhaps an 'undercover' visit to the place in question will be forthcoming very soon?

I don't think there is an "operator's certificate" for aerial work, is there? Art 6 of the ANO requires an AOC for public transport, but there's no corresponding requirement for aerial work.

All it requires is an aircraft with an appropriate C of A (in theory for aerial work but in practice there's no difference between that and a PT C of A) and a pilot with a CPL.

Perhaps he should get danger money... Oh no, that wouldn't work, would it?! :)

BEagle, and all:

The training I do in the Cats is sort of like the chicken and the egg problem.

When someone wants training in one I just sort of end up doing most of them due to there are not many flying and I stay current just by doing it.

As to the actual check ride it is usually done by an Inspector from the Country that the airplane is in ( even though they never ever seen one before ) except for a couple of countries that have given me check ride and type rating authority, the last country to do that was Australia, and now I have done all the magic paper work for Holland.

England lost the nicest PBY on earth when I ferried N9521C from North Weald to Virginia last summer, did you see the five page article on it in January FlyPast?

Well soon you should have the new airplane that Plane Sailing bought ferried to England and there will be a flying example for airshows.

As to renewing my Instructors rating, I can't afford the lobotomy to learn and reguritate all the manditory lesson plans and TC's ideas on how to teach.....so I'll just stumble along using what little I have picked up over the last half century doing it.

One last question?

When are you to old to still teach flying?

Chuck

You're only too old when either some obscure foreign law forces you to stop - or you decide you no longer want to do it! Somehow I don't think that the latter applies to you, Chuck!

Looking forward to seeing and hearing a Cat in the UK again soon; hope that you're flying her! Enjoy!!

BEagle,

I think you've missed my point. I was saying - or intending to - that being an FI doesn't mean I can do a few circuits with someone and tell if they'll be OK on, for instance, a long cross country. I haven't been trained to do that. I think I have as much chance of being able to do so as an experienced PPL; no more, no less.

However, I still think the problem is that we're calling this a "check". Don't forget that legally a pilot can fly even if he hasn't flown for a year (or more actually), and can take passengers so long as he's done three take-offs and landings within 90 days. Private owners and pilots with shares in aircraft aren't "checked" every 28 days. Lots of pilots really don't need to be, and schools often know who those pilots are. So, if they choose to let those pilots fly with a PPL safety pilot, and the insurance company is happy with that, it may not be a safety issue.

I see your point about it being a grey area with respect to employees and payment. It shouldn't be, but the CAA isn't always completely logical with respect to their own rules, so it could be. But IMHO it's not necessarily unsafe and wrong. You may disagree, and that's fine. However, I wonder if you're not mixing up your own opinions - to which you're perfectly entitled - with what is or isn't legal.

Finally, lets keep the two issues being discussed on this thread separate. PPLs doing trial lessons is illegal and totally wrong. PPLs acting as safety pilots to other PPLs to fit in with club or insurance rules is a very different matter. Let's not lump them together.

No instructor or examminer operates with the aid of a crystal ball.

If all you do with the pilot being checked is a few circuits then all you have to make a judgement on is their ability to safely take-off, perform the basic flight manoeuvres and land the aircraft.

We are talking about licensed pilots here, not students. All I expect of a pilot undergoing a check is to show me that they are not going to be a danger to themselves, their passengers, other operators or the club finances (damage the aircraft).

As an FI, one has experience of checking and correcting faults. One has also been licensed as an FI based in part on one's ability to make a decision regarding the competence of a pilot - that is what being an FI is all about.

When I fly with pilot's requiring a check, I can generally tell what type of a flight it is going to be based on how the pre-flight and pre-take-off checks are completed! :)

Regards,

DFC