DFC

The following thred on the PPL forum has highlighted evidence of a PPL (FI) completing Trial Lessons.

The Thred is here;

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=298571

If onle looks uo the website of the organisation named - Brooklands at Sywell, one can see the instructor they are referring to on their website.

The instructor's website is here;

http://flight-site.port5.com/story.htm

If I may quote from his website -

This seems to be a blatent case of people being charged for training that is provided by a PPL by a commercial organisation.

Purpose of flight - to "go up and see his house" - also seems to lean towards Public Transport.

Does this organisation charge less for Dual Tuition when provided by a PPL?

What do you think?

Regards,

DFC

Kanu

and so begins another witch hunt

RVR800

The 'Air Experience' of flying over ones house is a good start to a PPL; some sadly do not choose to continue beyond this stage. Some may come back again and again but fail to progress beyond the initial lesson.

I always teach Ex 4(1)on these occasions

Whopity

As he has a Flight Instructor rating then he is entitled to give instruction, trial lessons or otherwise, and the instrucrtion will count towards the issue of a licence. As he holds a PPL then he cannot be remunerated, but so long as the aircraft is maintained to public transport standards there is no reason why the candidate cannot pay for the hire of the aircraft.

What is a PPL (FI) supposed to do if they can't teach? There are loads of them at Sherwood Flying School Armstrong Whitworth etc.

DFC

All fine, provided that the organisation charges the same for hire of the aircraft as it does for dual insruction and for a introductory lesson.

e.g. £100 gets you 1 hour be it PPL or Solo student or dual training or trial lesson.

The fact that the student pays the instructor fee (charged in addition to the aircraft hire cost) but the instructor gives it back to the club (in other words the club with his permission never passes it on to him in the first place) means that one can not escape from the fact that the student paid for the services of the instructor.

Regards,

DFC

homeguard

DFC

Your arguements are convoluted, bathed in self intererest and simply wrong. Anybody may, in a free country, charge what they like to whom they wish at any time. No explanation is required.

DFC

You can not pay anyone to comitt an offence.

You can not charge a UK citizen one amount and a French citizen a different amount for the same product.

You can not charge a White Man one amount and a Black Man another for the same product.

If the big A flying club charges 100 per hour aircraft hire and 50 on top for dual instruction.

Mr B Student has a CPL holding instructor and pays £150 ( 100 for the hire of the aircraft and 50 for the service provided by the instrutor - flight instruction)

Mr A Student has a PPL instructor and if what you say is true they pay £150 for the aircraft hire.

Is it not true that Mr A is being overcharged because Mr B only pays £100 for the same thing?

On what basis do you discriminate against Mr A Student by charging them more when you have advertised the aircraft hire rate as £100?

Never mind the legality it is what most people call a rip off and even bigger one if you get your PPL application refused because the person who trained you did it illegally.

Regards,

DFC

homeguard

DFC
You still miss the point. If club X charges £150 for PPL training then that is what they state the charge is. How the incurred operating costs are made up and the level of profit, is the affair of the club. Should the same club charge for pilot self hire £100 then that is also up to them. The customer makes a choice but is not entitled to a breakdown of how they have arrived at their charges.
The two different charges do not have to relate. It could be that one employed instructor is paid £20 per hour but another £15 and yet another £zero. Are you saying that the law states; that the club must charge only the rate they pay the instructor who happens to undertake the flight on top of the advertised self hire rate. I would doubt whether there is a club in the country that is legal in that case.
It remains an interesting legal point whether, should it be discovered a PPL Instructor has been remunerated that the training itself is void - my initial thoughts are that it makes no difference. as whopity has said the instructor is qualified and has taught what he was qualified to do. The prosecution would presumably be for taking the money afterward - not the instruction, a seperate thing.

Whopity

The only offense would be if the FI was paid whilst holding a PPL. If he is not paid then there is no issue. The flight is aerial work because the candidate pays for the hire/training, the FI can conduct aerial work in the form of flight training, the school can charge whatever they like so I really can't see what there is to get excited about. If the FI is qualified the training is legal! You can train legally in a stolen aircraft provided it is airworthy!

That then poses the question why are Microlight Instructors and Helicopter Instructors allowed to be paid when holding a PPL? If you were taken to court for being remunerated whilst exercising the privileges of a PPL you could use all these examples as unfair regulation, resulting in some very muddy water.

DFC

Don't forget that it is a requirement that both the instructor and the student are members of the same club. being a member of the club gives you more rights than being just a customer.

------------

I don't think that you would get very far with that because;

a) The holder of a JAA instructor rating (even if included on a PPL) can instruct on microlights (after appropriate differences training) and thus can be paid more than the average CPL holding instructor.

Regards,

DFC

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

Whopity. To add some perspective to Instructing on a NPPL(M); a microlight aircraft is prohibited from aerial work. If a microlight flying instructor was deemed to be performing aerial work, nobody would ever be taught to fly microlights.

DFC

Not the case.

Flight instruction paid for in a microlight is aerial work.

However, if you read the permit to fly conditions for a factory built machine you will see that there is an exemption which permits aerial work in the form of flight instruction.

Regards,

DFC

Whopity

Read the Permit. Many state: Except for the giving of flight instruction. If it says you can't do it then you can't. But, all the ones I have seen that are used by microlight schools include it in the Permit.

xrayalpha

It's always a good one for microlight instructor tests: just where does it say what we can do!

Answer is not always simple, but it is there.

So microlight instructors are flying - for cash - legally.

ps. Light aircraft instructors - as long as they are not NPPL (SSEA) holders, which they won't be of course - can instruct on microlights without any conversion training.

Reason (in short): Your light aircraft licences are ICAO ones (except for the NPPL which is a UK one). There is no international definition of a microlight/ULM/ultraliegero/ultralight etc, so there is no way of excluding it from an international licence.

There is a UK definition of a microlight, so the CAA are able to exclude microlights from the UK NPPL (SSEA) and specifiy conversion/tests.

Having said that, I'd like to see a light aircraft pilot land a flexwing first time up!

A Very Civil Pilot

Air Navigation Order, Schedule 8, section 1, sub-section 1:

So, a PPL can do aerial work, if it is flight instruction with fellow club members, and he has a relevant rating.


ANO, Part 14:

So, the above flight can be paid for by the student, and the club can charge normal rates.

Back to Schedule 8, section 1, sub-section 1:

So as a PPL(A), he can't be paid for the work he has done.

Whopity

I wonder on what basis PFA Coaches get paid!

BHenderson

As a PPL/FI you can earn money under JAR. Say for example you own the flying school and are paid a salary for being the manager. You can instruct on the basis that you are the manager but do not receive remuneration for the flight. Obviously the self fly hire issue still exists, but there are quite a few instructors who have UK CAA PPL/FI licences still around.

TheOddOne

Practically everyone operating 4-seaters, I should think! I can see the issue with the upgrade situation you mention, but if you're already operating a 4-seater for the trial lesson and the pax joins the flying 'club' and doesn't pay any more money for the flight, then I can't see that it's Public Transport.

We routinely operate students in pairs so that the 'passenger' in the back can get an appreciation of the lesson before it's their turn and I'd say that this is of value to students. The person in the back can only strictly be described as a passenger; they can have no part ot play in operating the flight. Having said that, they are frequently useful as another pair of eyes, spotting traffic and that's been very useful to me recently.

Trial lessons aren't all jollies that should be operating under an AOC, you know. I converted 3 in the past 6 weeks to students who are now training. I treat EVERY trial lesson as a potential student, they all get the Ex 4.1 briefing and I expect them to fly the a/c.

Cheers,
TheOddOne

BEagle

Whopity, I understand that PFA 'coaches' have to be at least CRI(SPA) holders and may not receive remuneration except for 'reasonable expenses' which the PFA agreed with the CAA some while ago?

heading 125

What if you own a company that has just one instructor (a PPL/FI). A flying club then pays that company for the instructor services - not paying the instructor direct. The PPl/FI is a director of the company. Legal or not??