Trial flights - are they legal?

[Whirlybird]

When the “instructor” was handed over his “student” did the instructor know how the conversation had gone, and what did he think he was providing? Perhaps he would have kicked off introducing himself to my friend with “ah good, I hear you want to learn to fly, well I am your instructor for your first flight”.

IMHO, that would be a lousy way to introduce oneself to any trial lesson student anyway.

Instructors aren't generally taught how to conduct trial lessons, and I think they should be. I wrote an article on this; if you go to the FTN website and click on "Instructor Notes" you should be able to read it for free if you want.

When presented with a TL student, I say something like: "Hi, I'm Whirly, and I'm an instructor here. You've got what we call a trial lesson or air experience flight booked with me. Did you want to actually have a go at flying the helicopter?"

The answer then will be: "Yes, definitely", "Can I?", "I'm not sure", or "Oh no, I just wanted to look at the view". If it's either of the last two, I say something like, "That's fine, but since this may be the only chance you ever get to be in a helicopter, why don't you have a go on the controls too? That's what you've paid for, and it's all dual controls, so you're quite safe. If you don't like it I can take over. But why not give it a go so you can tell everyone you've flown a helicopter!"

Most people take me up on that. Some say they'll see when we're up there, and that's fine. In either of those instances they get a briefing (a brief one!) on how the controls work. If they say "no, not never, no way" or similar, I say OK, and just take them flying. I then offer them the chance of a go on the controls when in the air, and probably 75% of those take it up anyway! And the others? They get an Air Experience Flight, which is what Exercise 3 is....no matter what they expected when they arrived. They get told a bit about helicopters anyway, but in a non-threatening and non-technical way. they come down having lerned something.

Now what on earth is wrong with all that? It's entirely in the spirit of what Ex 3 is supposed to be....incidentally, as far as I remember it's actually called an Air Experience Flight, not a Trial lesson, which ought to save all this arguing (and Fuji's spelling! ).

[POBJOY]

Trial Flights

Its just the same old story with a new cover.
Where does club flying stop,and Public Transport start.
I would suggest in practice there is very little difference between a pleasure flight,and a club trial flight.
I would also suggest the public transport issue is to give the public some extra protection for air taxi / airline operation, rather than a local hop.
For an A to A trip in your local area a club machine flown by a qualified instructor is no less safe than an aoc operation.
It could also be argued that a fi will be far more in tune with regular "engine failure" practice due to the fact he is teaching it on a daily basis.
The CAA should allow flying clubs to operate local A to A flights without all this nonsense about it having to be a lesson.
Having said that it would also be prudent to ensure the aircraft are operating within the flight manual limits,and that is the big difference between club,and AOC work.
There are several airfields that would be limited by distance/slope/surface,and may not comply with a requirement for a safe margin for operating with a passenger load.
Before the "AOC" was invented flying clubs used to make you a temporary member so you could fly with them, i then seem to remember a rule came out stating you had to be a member for a certain time before you could fly,and this put paid to the club bonus of pleasure flights after air shows.(apart from those who predated the applications and paid by cash).
I am afraid with this "Legal World" we are now in, the true state of the law would only be tested in court, so it is a case of clubs/pilots beware if you are faced with action as result of an incident.
In fact the whole of the Club issue (not just flying) has the same problem,as risk assessment,and duty of care become common terms, together with "responsble person" ,and "accountability".
The short answer is to decide whether you can justify the situation to yourself if faced with the unclear options avaiable.
PC

[mm_flynn]

I don't think Fuji is unclear about the realities of pleasure flight vs. trial (a.k.a. trail ) lesson. The point is more a debate on the sensibility of the law. Some cases and how I think the law looks at them.

1 - You book a flight from A to B because you want to visit the beach.
2 - You buy a ride in a (Warbird, jet, PA28 etc) as a jolly from an adventure company (i.e. not a flight training organisation)
3 - You buy a ride in a PA28 from a flight school to go on a jolly
4 - You buy a ride in a PA28 because you think you might want to learn to fly
5 - You pay for fuel for your mate to fly you over to the next airfield to collect your aircraft from its annual.

1 - Public Transport (AOC + CPL needed)
2 - Public Transport (AOC + CPL needed)?
3 - Flight instruction (FI needed) but under debate in this thread
4 - Flight instruction (FI needed)
5 - Illegal or Public Transport (AOC + CPL needed)

In terms of protecting the unsuspecting public -

• 1 and 2 make sense,
• you can see how the public could believe that 2 and 3 should be the same,
• 4 makes sense and
• 5 seems not to make sense in that there is no unsuspecting public involved.

However, changing the rules on 5 would invite abuse.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Fuji, I would deal with a call like yours by explaining that we can't just go and do aerial photography, but if you did want to take photo's whilst undertaking an air experience flight that would be fine.

In your earlier post where you say "Well, the CAA would tell you the pleasure flight is inherently safer. For our pleasure flights it is possible your pilot will be a great deal more experienced becasue the CAA sets higher standards for pilots engaged in pleasure flights and we will have to comply with a whole bunch of additional procedures which the CAA would say were designed to make the flight safer."

Do you have the stats to back that up? Since the vast majority of "pleasure flights" are flown by FI's, most of whom now have CPL's or ATPL's, how can you make the point that they are less experienced.

I certainly know that the team of FI's we have is far more experienced than most of the local air taxi operators. Some are even senior figures in large airlines, so to say that they would be less safe whilst flying a/c that are maintained to the same standard is a load of nonsense.

This thread is creating a problem, not solving it. There has been no communication from our friends at the Belgrano to say that any club is doing anything "illegal" and these so called "dodgy practices" have been going on for years at each and every club/school with no problems, prosecutions or real issues.

I can only think of one incident during a trial lesson, at Bournemouth when a PA28 crashed shortly after T/O. That was down to inexperience of the FI. Since then every club/school I've been associated has changed procedures to ensure that it never happens again.

Pilots love to prove that they are smarter than each other, I have lost count of the number of times I've had to correct wrong information that has been spewed out by PPL's in the club house. More often than not the perpretator has espoused that something is "illegal", with no reference to reality.

If someone can point to a document that shows how most schools and clubs are doing anything wrong by offering "trial lessons" or air experience flights, then fine. But so far there has been nothing of the sort.

[Whirlybird]

for everyone's information....

The following is from CAP 421 - Basic Flying Instructor (Helicopter) Handbook. First published 1979, and reprinted up until the date of my copy, which is 1996. I believe it's now out of date, but some things don't change, and I suspect that Ex 3 is one of them. I quote Exercise 3 in its entirety....

Exercise 3. Air Experience

Aim
To introduce the student to rotary-wing flight

Instructional Guide
1) It is not intended that any flying instruction should be given in this period, but the student should be allowed to accustom himself to the sensations of rotary-wing flight, the attitudes of the aircraft when climbing and descending and, particularly, the ability to reduce speed to zero (i e hover) in the air. He may be given the feel of the stick without any attempt being made to explain its effect in detail.

2) This period can also be used to show the student the immediate vicinity of the airfield, point out the local landmarks and give him a general impression of the circuit area with particular reference to any fixed-wing flying that may be taking place.

That's it!!!!

I daresay the fixed-wing version is a little different, but only in details, I would imagine.

Hmmm...on that basis, I've been gving far too much instruction to my trial lesson students. I'd better stop!!!!!

[Caullystone]

"I went to the school and said I wanted to learn to fly. They said OK, we'll start by booking you a trial lesson. I said no need for that, I know I want to learn to fly. But they insisted"

That was the same for me.... however it was a real lesson "EX4" but that did make me log it as trail lesson???

[robin]

The problem for me is not about trial lessons - this was discussed long ago, when the 'blood chit' was deemed illegal

My issue is the 5th case - asking a friend to take me to pick up (or return me) from my maintenance. Or even offering a friend a ride in my a/c.

If he (for example) were to buy me dinner and a beer after the flight, is that 'valuable consideration'?

[Say again s l o w l y]

No.

Even the CAA couldn't be bothered to prosecute for that!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

If he (for example) were to buy me dinner and a beer after the flight, is that 'valuable consideration'?

Unless you have an exceedingly cheap aeroplane or an exceedingly expensive taste in beer this should be OK under the cost sharing rule.

[Fuji Abound]

I don't think Fuji is unclear about the realities of pleasure flight vs. trial (a.k.a. trail ) lesson. The point is more a debate on the sensibility of the law. Some cases and how I think the law looks at them.

My faith is restored - thank goodness you understand - thank you.

Now what on earth is wrong with all that? It's entirely in the spirit of what Ex 3 is supposed to be....incidentally, as far as I remember it's actually called an Air Experience Flight, not a Trial lesson, which ought to save all this arguing (and Fuji's spelling! ).

Nothing - if you thought you were getting a trial lesson, and that is what you wanted.


If someone can point to a document that shows how most schools and clubs are doing anything wrong by offering "trial lessons" or air experience flights, then fine. But so far there has been nothing of the sort.

I just dont understand your not following the thrust of my argument. Of course there is nothing wrong in offering trial lessons if that is what the punter wanted and thought they were getting. The trouble is trial lessons are often a pleasure flight dressed up as something different.


Do you have the stats to back that up? Since the vast majority of "pleasure flights" are flown by FI's, most of whom now have CPL's or ATPL's, how can you make the point that they are less experienced.

You may well be right, but if you are you need to tell the CAA that all the hoops an AOC holder goes through are complete tosh.


You can call an apple a pear if you wish.

If someone wants a pleasure flight I think I understand what it is they are after. They may well go on and learn to fly and they might not.

I f someone thinks they might to learn to fly and wants a trial lesson I think I also understand what it is they are after.

If you want to call a pleasure flight a trial lesson then the English langauge has nothing to offer in conveying meaning based on the words we use.

.. .. .. and yes, I only raised the subject becasue I think the law is in a mess - I have no issue at all with flying schools offering pleasure flights - jolly good idea in fact, and I have no problem with one qualified pilot agreeing to provide an air taxi serivce to the other to retrieve his aircraft with the cost bieng met.

I do have a reasonable amount to do with the law however. For what it is worth if someone 'phoned up as I did and was sold a trial lesson when they wanted and thought they were getting a pleasure flight and there was an accident I would far rather prosecute than defend!

[Say again s l o w l y]

Most people want to have a go in an aircraft, not just be a passenger.
Those people can only do that with an air experience flight, not a pleasure flight.

That's where this all falls down and is the major differentiator.

Of course AOC holders have to do a lot to be granted a certificate, but it doesn't mean the pilot's themselves are particularily experienced.

If you had an engine failure or other emergency in-flight, who would you rather have sat at the controls? An experienced FI, or a wet behind the ears straight from school CPL in their first flying job?

If the law is unclear, then it would be very difficult to form a case for prosecution. Any half decent defence brief would make mincemeat of shoddy legislation and unclear rules.

In this case I'd rather defend than prosecute!