Student Licence Privileges/Limitations - Instructors comment sought
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Student Licence Privileges/Limitations - Instructors comment sought
BRAINTEASER:
Is an Australian student pilot legally entitled to takeoff, fly and land an Australian registered aircraft in the USA with his Australian CFI on board.
The flight is repositioning in a ferry configuration under a Special Flight Permit with an endorsement "Aircraft shall carry essential crew only" and for the flight in question the distance is 124 nm (but the next is 2100 nm).
The AOC for the Flying School does not permit training outside of Australia.
The CFI says it is not a training flight, but has prior to the flight given the student instructions on the CSU, R-U/C (both normal and emergency).
The aircraft is a high performance SE with CSU, Retractable U/C and a Garmin 1000 flight display, and the student who conducted the flight in the USA at the time had only done 3 solo circuits at YSBK.
The student has not completed the GFPT nor has an endorsement for high performance single.
And if anyone is familiar with FAA regulations, is there any breach under their rules for the same set of circumstances.
For good measure, what would your opinion be of a Ferry company entrusted with delivery of a $700,000 aircraft who unleash a student pilot on it without the owner's knowledge or consent.
Is an Australian student pilot legally entitled to takeoff, fly and land an Australian registered aircraft in the USA with his Australian CFI on board.
The flight is repositioning in a ferry configuration under a Special Flight Permit with an endorsement "Aircraft shall carry essential crew only" and for the flight in question the distance is 124 nm (but the next is 2100 nm).
The AOC for the Flying School does not permit training outside of Australia.
The CFI says it is not a training flight, but has prior to the flight given the student instructions on the CSU, R-U/C (both normal and emergency).
The aircraft is a high performance SE with CSU, Retractable U/C and a Garmin 1000 flight display, and the student who conducted the flight in the USA at the time had only done 3 solo circuits at YSBK.
The student has not completed the GFPT nor has an endorsement for high performance single.
And if anyone is familiar with FAA regulations, is there any breach under their rules for the same set of circumstances.
For good measure, what would your opinion be of a Ferry company entrusted with delivery of a $700,000 aircraft who unleash a student pilot on it without the owner's knowledge or consent.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ovation, nothing to do with legal action against Clamback and Henessy in Adelaide?
Clearly it is a training flight, so it sounds like the CFI has acted illegally in "instructing" in the US of A if their AOC says otherwise. What a bunch of prick$ they are using your airplane to give instruction to a raw student while being paid to ferry it on your behalf. BTW, what sort of aircraft are we talking about? Did they do any damage?
Clearly it is a training flight, so it sounds like the CFI has acted illegally in "instructing" in the US of A if their AOC says otherwise. What a bunch of prick$ they are using your airplane to give instruction to a raw student while being paid to ferry it on your behalf. BTW, what sort of aircraft are we talking about? Did they do any damage?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to Stallie
... I would add that it would be a strange aircraft indeed that required two crew to operate yet a SPL holder could act as the second crewmember. 
All the two-crew ops manuals and legislation I have read explicitly state that "two crew operations" require both members of the crew to be appropriately licenced, rated and endorsed for the operation concerned and trained and qualified in two-crew operations.
Again, it is drawing a very long bow to suggest a student - instructor relatoinship would fit that definition... yes, the student is qualified to receive instruction on navigation but not to conduct trans-pacific ferries.
Bendo
All the two-crew ops manuals and legislation I have read explicitly state that "two crew operations" require both members of the crew to be appropriately licenced, rated and endorsed for the operation concerned and trained and qualified in two-crew operations.
Again, it is drawing a very long bow to suggest a student - instructor relatoinship would fit that definition... yes, the student is qualified to receive instruction on navigation but not to conduct trans-pacific ferries.
Bendo
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly it is a training flight, so it sounds like the CFI has acted illegally in "instructing" in the US of A if their AOC says otherwise. What a bunch of prick$ they are using your airplane to give instruction to a raw student while being paid to ferry it on your behalf. BTW, what sort of aircraft are we talking about? Did they do any damage?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
compressor stall
Is it a single pilot aircraft? If so, essential crew only would not cover the student under the provisions of the SFP.
Is it a single pilot aircraft? If so, essential crew only would not cover the student under the provisions of the SFP.
What CAR regulation/s do you think are violated by having a student on the flight?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CFI says it is not a training flight, but has prior to the flight given the student instructions on the CSU, R-U/C (both normal and emergency).
So this SP flew your plane in the USA with his CFI on board and it's not a training flight. OK, so in that case go to CIVIL AVIATION ACT Sec 20AB which does not permit a student to fly the aircraft unless qualified to do so. PENALTY 2 years in the slammer and foor good measure the PIC has aided and abetted an offence under the Crimes Act.
So the CFI might then say, oops, it WAS a training flight in which case it quailifies as a breach of their AOC unless it specifically allows training outside of Oz, must be part of the syllabus of training and must be in an approved training aircraft.
Ovation: I'll make it succinct:
Essential Crew Only.
The extra person on board is in violation of the provisions of the SFP. I do not know the reg off the top of my head.
Essential Crew Only.
The extra person on board is in violation of the provisions of the SFP. I do not know the reg off the top of my head.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAR 249: Prohibition of carriage of passengers on certain flights
Rotary Fizzy
Rotary Fizzy
