Requirements for licensed A/D (SEP/MEP Training)
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Requirements for licensed A/D (SEP/MEP Training)
Interestingly enough I have spoken to one or two instructors who seem to think that you do not need a licensed a/d for touch-and-goes for instructing and that merely starting/ending at a licensed a/d is satisfactory.
[Edit - Where I say licensed a/d, I mean licensed / Government a/d]
Well, having seached the ANO to find where this is written as acceptable I find in article 101 that it is not. the wording is....
Thats is unless one or two instructors seem to think touch & goes dont count as take-offs and landings 
Which now begs the question....how on earth can a flying school (RF) operating from an unlicensed A/D training for SEP/MEP training possibly operate? And how the hell do they justfiy the enhanced costs and time of transit on each flight to the paying customer - or are these flying schools actually operating illegally by training on the transit flight?
[Edit - Where I say licensed a/d, I mean licensed / Government a/d]
Well, having seached the ANO to find where this is written as acceptable I find in article 101 that it is not. the wording is....
Aerodromes – public transport of passengers and instruction in flying
101 (1) An aircraft to which this paragraph applies shall not take off or land at a place in the
United Kingdom other than:
(a) an aerodrome licensed under this Order for the take-off and landing of such
aircraft; or
(b) a Government aerodrome, or an aerodrome owned or managed by the CAA,
notified as available for the take-off and landing of such aircraft, or in respect of
which the person in charge of the aerodrome has given his permission for the
particular aircraft to take off or land as the case may be;
and in accordance with any conditions subject to which the aerodrome may have
been licensed or notified, or subject to which such permission may have been given.
(2) Subject to paragraph (3), paragraph (1) applies to:
(a) aeroplanes of which the maximum total weight authorised exceeds 2730 kg and
which are flying:
(i) for the purpose of the public transport of passengers;
(ii) for the purpose of instruction in flying given to any person for the purpose
of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion of an
aircraft rating, a night rating or a night qualification in a licence; or
(iii) for the purpose of carrying out flying tests in respect of the grant of a pilot’s
licence or the inclusion of an aircraft rating or a night rating in a licence;
101 (1) An aircraft to which this paragraph applies shall not take off or land at a place in the
United Kingdom other than:
(a) an aerodrome licensed under this Order for the take-off and landing of such
aircraft; or
(b) a Government aerodrome, or an aerodrome owned or managed by the CAA,
notified as available for the take-off and landing of such aircraft, or in respect of
which the person in charge of the aerodrome has given his permission for the
particular aircraft to take off or land as the case may be;
and in accordance with any conditions subject to which the aerodrome may have
been licensed or notified, or subject to which such permission may have been given.
(2) Subject to paragraph (3), paragraph (1) applies to:
(a) aeroplanes of which the maximum total weight authorised exceeds 2730 kg and
which are flying:
(i) for the purpose of the public transport of passengers;
(ii) for the purpose of instruction in flying given to any person for the purpose
of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion of an
aircraft rating, a night rating or a night qualification in a licence; or
(iii) for the purpose of carrying out flying tests in respect of the grant of a pilot’s
licence or the inclusion of an aircraft rating or a night rating in a licence;
Which now begs the question....how on earth can a flying school (RF) operating from an unlicensed A/D training for SEP/MEP training possibly operate? And how the hell do they justfiy the enhanced costs and time of transit on each flight to the paying customer - or are these flying schools actually operating illegally by training on the transit flight?
Last edited by FormationFlyer; 21st Jun 2003 at 08:23.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you know of any RFs operating out of unlicensed airfields?
There are situations where the use of unlicensed fields is necessary, for example if somene is being taught strip flying. The main point here is that the student already has a licence and is not being taught something for the grant of a licence or rating.
Checkouts or conversion training comes into the same category. Someone learning on a new type within an existing class rating that they hold would not need to use a licensed a/d.
The issue of licensed airfields for instruction is under consideration by the authoiry, particluarly in respect of the need for fire cover.
There are situations where the use of unlicensed fields is necessary, for example if somene is being taught strip flying. The main point here is that the student already has a licence and is not being taught something for the grant of a licence or rating.
Checkouts or conversion training comes into the same category. Someone learning on a new type within an existing class rating that they hold would not need to use a licensed a/d.
The issue of licensed airfields for instruction is under consideration by the authoiry, particluarly in respect of the need for fire cover.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I do...AFAIK there is at least one scholl at Enstone which teaches ab-initio+ for grant of licences/ratings....rumour has it they transit to a licensed a/d - but I cannot see how that could be cost effective for a 10-20min transit each way....puzzelling isnt it?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Um not sure of your point BEagle...
I have only quoted facts....I am merely asking how such a setup operates? After all I am now fairly confused about how this is possible...
The questions merely came about after a conversation with another instructor who seemed to believe that you could transit to an unlicensed a/d - for say an engineering flight (not an instructor at the school you are CFI at) and then could classify both the outbound and inbound flights as training (for PPL issue) - this went against what I thought - hence I checked the references...hence my questions...
Now if someone can explain things to me fine....especially if there are some references im missing......at the moment Im confused.
I have only quoted facts....I am merely asking how such a setup operates? After all I am now fairly confused about how this is possible...
The questions merely came about after a conversation with another instructor who seemed to believe that you could transit to an unlicensed a/d - for say an engineering flight (not an instructor at the school you are CFI at) and then could classify both the outbound and inbound flights as training (for PPL issue) - this went against what I thought - hence I checked the references...hence my questions...
Now if someone can explain things to me fine....especially if there are some references im missing......at the moment Im confused.
Certainly only licensed or government aerodromes may be used for ab-initio PPL SEP training. But regarding a flight with a student to an unlicensed aerodrome for maintenance purposes, things are less clear. If, for example a flight from a licensed aerodrome culminated in a landing at an unlicensed aerodrome, I would consider that the student shall not be allowed to control the ac for flight within the unlicensed aerodrome circuit, including the landing. So the RF must not allow the student to log the entire flight, nor charge him/her for the entire flight.
Similarly, to fly with a student from an unlicensed aerdrome to a licensed one for instruction in circuit flying would mean that the student would have to be a non-paying passenger for that portion of the flight at the unlicensed aerodrome. It could be a cost effective option if the all-in cost (site rent, ac parking charges, fuel) to the RF were considered - but I doubt whether the Authority would routinely condone such activity.
Similarly, to fly with a student from an unlicensed aerdrome to a licensed one for instruction in circuit flying would mean that the student would have to be a non-paying passenger for that portion of the flight at the unlicensed aerodrome. It could be a cost effective option if the all-in cost (site rent, ac parking charges, fuel) to the RF were considered - but I doubt whether the Authority would routinely condone such activity.
Certainly only licensed or government aerodromes may be used for ab-initio PPL SEP training. But regarding a flight with a student to an unlicensed aerodrome for maintenance purposes, things are less clear.
If, for example a flight from a licensed aerodrome culminated in a landing at an unlicensed aerodrome, I would consider that the student shall not be allowed to control the ac for flight within the unlicensed aerodrome circuit, including the landing. So the RF must not allow the student to log the entire flight, nor charge him/her for the entire flight.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some months ago it was claimed by some instructors, that a flight commencing from an unlicensed aerodrome, could start instruction for a licence or aircraft rating, by touching wheels at a licensed aerodrome however; on completion of the instruction, it was then only necessary to overfly the licenced aerodrome en route to the unlicensed aerodrome!
The cost of operating form an unlicensed site is obviously so much less, that the ferry can be conducted free of charge!
An interesting question arrises with government aerodromes; CAA legal department advises that they must be under operational control of a Service, Govt Dept or Foreign power; not simply owned by them.
The CAA are again looking at the possibility of allowing unlicensed aerodromes to be used for training. It was offered on a plate in 1996 but rejected by the Industry; of the 2500+ interested parties consulted, only 125 bothered to respond, the majority of which were aerodrome operators.
The cost of operating form an unlicensed site is obviously so much less, that the ferry can be conducted free of charge!
An interesting question arrises with government aerodromes; CAA legal department advises that they must be under operational control of a Service, Govt Dept or Foreign power; not simply owned by them.
The CAA are again looking at the possibility of allowing unlicensed aerodromes to be used for training. It was offered on a plate in 1996 but rejected by the Industry; of the 2500+ interested parties consulted, only 125 bothered to respond, the majority of which were aerodrome operators.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My angle on this issue is as follows:
Training flight......instructor is paid for the flight so holds a CPL...but no AOC required because as a training flight it is not public transport.
If in moving the aircraft and student from the unlicensed airfield to a licensed airfield, the Instructor is paid then in my book, that initial flight is public transport since the pilot is being paid to carry a passenger to another airfield. Same goes if the instructor is a PPL instructing for free but the student pays.
Public transport flights require a licensed airfield.
Thus as far as I can see, the only way in which both instructor and student can travel in the aircraft from then unlicensed airfield to a licensed one is if they both do it for nothing...i.e. the student doesent pay to be a passenger and also the instructor is not paid for any part of that flight.
There is no law that says a passenger can not manipulate the controls. However they can't log the flight time.
If the instructor is paid enough for the subsequent legal training flight and the student pays an appropriate ammount per hour for legal training, the cost of the "free" leg in the middle can be made up.
Regards,
DFC
Training flight......instructor is paid for the flight so holds a CPL...but no AOC required because as a training flight it is not public transport.
If in moving the aircraft and student from the unlicensed airfield to a licensed airfield, the Instructor is paid then in my book, that initial flight is public transport since the pilot is being paid to carry a passenger to another airfield. Same goes if the instructor is a PPL instructing for free but the student pays.
Public transport flights require a licensed airfield.
Thus as far as I can see, the only way in which both instructor and student can travel in the aircraft from then unlicensed airfield to a licensed one is if they both do it for nothing...i.e. the student doesent pay to be a passenger and also the instructor is not paid for any part of that flight.
There is no law that says a passenger can not manipulate the controls. However they can't log the flight time.
If the instructor is paid enough for the subsequent legal training flight and the student pays an appropriate ammount per hour for legal training, the cost of the "free" leg in the middle can be made up.
Regards,
DFC
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aha. That clears up a few things...because today I got thinking and thought if the student pays the transit costs - and they arent allowed to be a student then they are a fare paying passenger - as it terminates at a different a/d then its not pleasure flying and therefore no longer aerial work - which then puts you into pub transport AOCs and duty hours on pilots etc etc....
Obviously if the operation is costed so that transit flights are free - and (I assume) training not intended for the grant of a licence or rating is charged at the same rate (i.e. it is not obvious that the cost of the transit is in fact a hidden cost) then I can see how it works.
Thanks for clearing it up.
I just had to divert a flight into an unlicensed a/d on friday on an instructional sortie due to an alternator failure mid-flight - made more sense to divert to engineering than back at base....There is a set point I terminated training at - and on the return journey restarted training....transit to took about 30mins and back about 15 before training recommenced...flights were both 1 hour long. Now whilst this was not allowed under article 101 and may be penalised in article 122 it was not without due reason (alternator failure in flight). Fortunately article 121 allows me to do this as I didnt do it 'without reasonable excuse'. So I managed to square that. I will only claim instructing for the time I was actually instructing the rest is non-instructional. Obvious P1 the whole flight. Similarly on the return journey. Obviously the 'incident' made it an exceptional flight.
I agree that it would be silly and you wouldnt expect the flights to be conducted as you state - Especially regarding the 'purpose' of the flight. On a personal logbook front though its easy to break a flight up as you only log the time spent performing such duties...
LOL. Clearly that isnt so as a 'flight' is deemed to be (article 129) -
So the minimum is at least astop-and-go.
Cheers for the thoughts folks - explains a lot - very interesting. Thanks.
Obviously if the operation is costed so that transit flights are free - and (I assume) training not intended for the grant of a licence or rating is charged at the same rate (i.e. it is not obvious that the cost of the transit is in fact a hidden cost) then I can see how it works.
Thanks for clearing it up.
I just had to divert a flight into an unlicensed a/d on friday on an instructional sortie due to an alternator failure mid-flight - made more sense to divert to engineering than back at base....There is a set point I terminated training at - and on the return journey restarted training....transit to took about 30mins and back about 15 before training recommenced...flights were both 1 hour long. Now whilst this was not allowed under article 101 and may be penalised in article 122 it was not without due reason (alternator failure in flight). Fortunately article 121 allows me to do this as I didnt do it 'without reasonable excuse'. So I managed to square that. I will only claim instructing for the time I was actually instructing the rest is non-instructional. Obvious P1 the whole flight. Similarly on the return journey. Obviously the 'incident' made it an exceptional flight.
bookworm I'm not sure they are. Articles 101 and 130 make no provision for a flight to be broken down piecemeal into instructional parts and non-instructional parts. If the flight is for the purpose of instruction in flying then it is for the purpose of instruction in flying. You wouldn't expect a public transport flight operator to be able to say "it's OK to land at this unlicensed airfield because I only charged the passengers for the first 55 minutes -- the last 5 minutes before landing were free"
StrateandLevel Some months ago it was claimed by some instructors, that a flight commencing from an unlicensed aerodrome, could start instruction for a licence or aircraft rating, by touching wheels at a licensed aerodrome however; on completion of the instruction, it was then only necessary to overfly the licenced aerodrome en route to the unlicensed aerodrome!
(2) An aircraft shall be deemed to be in flight:
(a) in the case of a piloted flying machine, from the moment when, after the
embarkation of its crew for the purpose of taking off, it first moves under its own
power until the moment when it next comes to rest after landing;
(a) in the case of a piloted flying machine, from the moment when, after the
embarkation of its crew for the purpose of taking off, it first moves under its own
power until the moment when it next comes to rest after landing;
Cheers for the thoughts folks - explains a lot - very interesting. Thanks.
Last edited by FormationFlyer; 23rd Jun 2003 at 06:55.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following DFC's comments (posted same time as my own!)
aha. Interesting. I suppose the fact is that if money changed hands in any way for the transit flight with either the instructor/student or both then it is public transport. Makes sense.
Very Very interesting. Cheers once again for a stimulating discussion - especially as these sorts of situations crop up all the time in our instructor lives - its like instructor on group owned/private owned aircraft on a private CofA or Permit to Fly...but thats another storey Im not 100% clear on yet!!! Maybe another thread!?
Cheers All.
FF
DFC If in moving the aircraft and student from the unlicensed airfield to a licensed airfield, the Instructor is paid then in my book, that initial flight is public transport since the pilot is being paid to carry a passenger to another airfield. Same goes if the instructor is a PPL instructing for free but the student pays.
Very Very interesting. Cheers once again for a stimulating discussion - especially as these sorts of situations crop up all the time in our instructor lives - its like instructor on group owned/private owned aircraft on a private CofA or Permit to Fly...but thats another storey Im not 100% clear on yet!!! Maybe another thread!?
Cheers All.
FF
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
DFC
Sorry to muddy the waters again, but no they don't if the aircraft is less than 2730kgs and isn't flying a schedule or a pleasure flight from and to the same airfield [ANO Art.101(2)(b)]
Public transport flights require a licensed airfield.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
North South, you are correct. I expect that is how the Jockey flights operate from Race courses.
All that leaves then is the requirement to hold an AOC for the operation!
Regards,
DFC
All that leaves then is the requirement to hold an AOC for the operation!
Regards,
DFC
Aerodromes – public transport of passengers and instruction in flying
101 (1) An aircraft to which this paragraph applies shall not take off or land at a place in the
United Kingdom other than:
(a) an aerodrome licensed under this Order for the take-off and landing of such
aircraft; or
(b) a Government aerodrome, or an aerodrome owned or managed by the CAA,
notified as available for the take-off and landing of such aircraft, or in respect of
which the person in charge of the aerodrome has given his permission for the
particular aircraft to take off or land as the case may be;
and in accordance with any conditions subject to which the aerodrome may have
been licensed or notified, or subject to which such permission may have been given.
(2) Subject to paragraph (3), paragraph (1) applies to:
(a) aeroplanes of which the maximum total weight authorised exceeds 2730 kg and
which are flying:
(i) for the purpose of the public transport of passengers;
(ii) for the purpose of instruction in flying given to any person for the purpose
of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion of an
aircraft rating, a night rating or a night qualification in a licence; or
(iii) for the purpose of carrying out flying tests in respect of the grant of a pilot’s
licence or the inclusion of an aircraft rating or a night rating in a licence;
101 (1) An aircraft to which this paragraph applies shall not take off or land at a place in the
United Kingdom other than:
(a) an aerodrome licensed under this Order for the take-off and landing of such
aircraft; or
(b) a Government aerodrome, or an aerodrome owned or managed by the CAA,
notified as available for the take-off and landing of such aircraft, or in respect of
which the person in charge of the aerodrome has given his permission for the
particular aircraft to take off or land as the case may be;
and in accordance with any conditions subject to which the aerodrome may have
been licensed or notified, or subject to which such permission may have been given.
(2) Subject to paragraph (3), paragraph (1) applies to:
(a) aeroplanes of which the maximum total weight authorised exceeds 2730 kg and
which are flying:
(i) for the purpose of the public transport of passengers;
(ii) for the purpose of instruction in flying given to any person for the purpose
of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion of an
aircraft rating, a night rating or a night qualification in a licence; or
(iii) for the purpose of carrying out flying tests in respect of the grant of a pilot’s
licence or the inclusion of an aircraft rating or a night rating in a licence;
So, what does Para (3) say? And I presume there is a Para. (2)(b) since there is a (2)(a)? Unless Para (3) or the missing Para (2)(b) rope in a/c <2730 MTOW then this section is irrelevent to most light a/c flying training.
It specifically applies to a/c above 2730 kg
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Para 3 relates to Police AOC operations and Para 2(b) (iii) applies to aircraft which do not exceed 2730Kgs; i.e. flying training.
So flying training does require a licenced aerodrome as already stated.
So flying training does require a licenced aerodrome as already stated.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here you are
(b) aeroplanes of which the maximum total weight authorised does not exceed 2730 kg engaged on either:
(i) scheduled journeys for the purpose of the public transport of passengers;
(ii) flights for the purpose of the public transport of passengers beginning and ending at the same aerodrome;
(iii) flights for the purpose of:
(aa) instruction in flying given to any person for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion of an aircraft rating, a night rating or a night qualification in a licence; or
(bb) a flying test in respect of the grant of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion of an aircraft rating, a night rating or a night qualification in a licence; or
(iv) flights for the purpose of the public transport of passengers at night;
(b) aeroplanes of which the maximum total weight authorised does not exceed 2730 kg engaged on either:
(i) scheduled journeys for the purpose of the public transport of passengers;
(ii) flights for the purpose of the public transport of passengers beginning and ending at the same aerodrome;
(iii) flights for the purpose of:
(aa) instruction in flying given to any person for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion of an aircraft rating, a night rating or a night qualification in a licence; or
(bb) a flying test in respect of the grant of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion of an aircraft rating, a night rating or a night qualification in a licence; or
(iv) flights for the purpose of the public transport of passengers at night;
(2) Subject to paragraph (3), paragraph (1) applies to:
(a) aeroplanes of which the maximum total weight authorised exceeds 2730 kg and which are flying:
(i) for the purpose of the public transport of passengers;
(ii) for the purpose of instruction in flying given to any person for the purpose of
becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion of an aircraft
rating, a night rating or a night qualification in a licence; or
(iii) for the purpose of carrying out flying tests in respect of the grant of a pilot’s
licence or the inclusion of an aircraft rating or a night rating in a licence;
(b) aeroplanes of which the maximum total weight authorised does not exceed 2730 kg engaged on either:
(i) scheduled journeys for the purpose of the public transport of passengers;
(ii) flights for the purpose of the public transport of passengers beginning and
ending at the same aerodrome;
(iii) flights for the purpose of:
(aa) instruction in flying given to any person for the purpose of becoming
qualified for the grant of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion of an aircraft
rating, a night rating or a night qualification in a licence; or
(bb) a flying test in respect of the grant of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion of an
aircraft rating, a night rating or a night qualification in a licence; or
(iv) flights for the purpose of the public transport of passengers at night;
(a) aeroplanes of which the maximum total weight authorised exceeds 2730 kg and which are flying:
(i) for the purpose of the public transport of passengers;
(ii) for the purpose of instruction in flying given to any person for the purpose of
becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion of an aircraft
rating, a night rating or a night qualification in a licence; or
(iii) for the purpose of carrying out flying tests in respect of the grant of a pilot’s
licence or the inclusion of an aircraft rating or a night rating in a licence;
(b) aeroplanes of which the maximum total weight authorised does not exceed 2730 kg engaged on either:
(i) scheduled journeys for the purpose of the public transport of passengers;
(ii) flights for the purpose of the public transport of passengers beginning and
ending at the same aerodrome;
(iii) flights for the purpose of:
(aa) instruction in flying given to any person for the purpose of becoming
qualified for the grant of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion of an aircraft
rating, a night rating or a night qualification in a licence; or
(bb) a flying test in respect of the grant of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion of an
aircraft rating, a night rating or a night qualification in a licence; or
(iv) flights for the purpose of the public transport of passengers at night;
Awesome but Affordable
I came across this thread which is relevant at the moment.
There is a joint CAA/industry study group, recently organised, that is looking at small licensed aerodromes and the present requirements of Article 101. The CAA would appreciate the widest possible consultation and contributions to the work of the study group.
I am a member of the group having been nominated by the PFA however if you prefer to liaise with your own representative bodies then other organisations such as AOPA(UK), AOA, BBGAA, BGA, BMAA and GAPAN have put forward individuals who are also group members.
It may be that radical change in the need to use a licensed aerodrome for aircraft below 2730KG especially for training may result. There are a number of anomalies in the present requirements that need sorting out in any case.
I would much appreciate any comments you may have on this subject either on this thread or in a PM to me. Your ideas will then be put forward into the study group melting pot.
Many thanks,
Barry Tempest FRAeS
There is a joint CAA/industry study group, recently organised, that is looking at small licensed aerodromes and the present requirements of Article 101. The CAA would appreciate the widest possible consultation and contributions to the work of the study group.
I am a member of the group having been nominated by the PFA however if you prefer to liaise with your own representative bodies then other organisations such as AOPA(UK), AOA, BBGAA, BGA, BMAA and GAPAN have put forward individuals who are also group members.
It may be that radical change in the need to use a licensed aerodrome for aircraft below 2730KG especially for training may result. There are a number of anomalies in the present requirements that need sorting out in any case.
I would much appreciate any comments you may have on this subject either on this thread or in a PM to me. Your ideas will then be put forward into the study group melting pot.
Many thanks,
Barry Tempest FRAeS