Trial flights - are they legal?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trial flights - are they legal?
On another thread there has been the usual discussion about when you can contribute towards or pay for a flight.
The point was made that the CAA has mounted a number of prosecutions against pilots without a CPL or CPL and AOC who have fallen outside the various exemptions (concessions).
Now I had always thought that trial flights were a bit close to the wind.
As we know nearly every flying schoold does them and the majority of flying schools dont have an AOC which is why I thought they dress them up as a trial lesson.
However, if you were to interview 100 people after their trial lesson (including the 70 year I recently saw hobbling out to the aircraft) whether they had any intention of learning to fly I suspect I know what the answer would be in the majority of cases.
So has the law changed, or is this still just a convenient way around the law. Do the CAA turn a blind eye?
.. .. .. and since the insurance companies were mentioned on the last thread, what would happen if there was an accident, and the relatives disclosed that the trial flighter had no intention what so ever of learning to fly but just wanted a spin around their mates house for their birthday .. .. ..
.. .. .. and is the matter even more complex when it is a trial aerobatic flight - I dont suppose there are many people who really wanted to learn to fly who would start out with a trial lesson in an Extra 300.
The point was made that the CAA has mounted a number of prosecutions against pilots without a CPL or CPL and AOC who have fallen outside the various exemptions (concessions).
Now I had always thought that trial flights were a bit close to the wind.
As we know nearly every flying schoold does them and the majority of flying schools dont have an AOC which is why I thought they dress them up as a trial lesson.
However, if you were to interview 100 people after their trial lesson (including the 70 year I recently saw hobbling out to the aircraft) whether they had any intention of learning to fly I suspect I know what the answer would be in the majority of cases.
So has the law changed, or is this still just a convenient way around the law. Do the CAA turn a blind eye?
.. .. .. and since the insurance companies were mentioned on the last thread, what would happen if there was an accident, and the relatives disclosed that the trial flighter had no intention what so ever of learning to fly but just wanted a spin around their mates house for their birthday .. .. ..
.. .. .. and is the matter even more complex when it is a trial aerobatic flight - I dont suppose there are many people who really wanted to learn to fly who would start out with a trial lesson in an Extra 300.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 24th Sep 2007 at 11:58.
Intelligent Idiot
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cleethorpes, UK
Age: 66
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji, do you mean CPL only or CPL with FI rating.
Just for the record, I had a trial flight bought for a Chrissy prezzie a couple of years ago as my mother knew I had always wanted to fly.
Subsequently went on to obtain PPL but not with the school I took the trial flight with. How would that rate if your concerns were valid.
Would the school who sold the flight fall foul because I didn't learn with them ?
Just for the record, I had a trial flight bought for a Chrissy prezzie a couple of years ago as my mother knew I had always wanted to fly.
Subsequently went on to obtain PPL but not with the school I took the trial flight with. How would that rate if your concerns were valid.
Would the school who sold the flight fall foul because I didn't learn with them ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
If the flight begins and ends at the same aerodrome, stays within 25nm and the PiC has a CPL, what's the issue with trial flights? They are not PT, same as a pleasure/sigh seeing flight I would have thought. Lack of an FI rating would only mean that the PiC couldn't provide any instruction.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kent
Age: 61
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding if the customer is paying (as opposed to taking your mate for a flight) - though I have never bothered looking up the actual words - is summarised by:
Usually either lesson 3 (Air Experience) or 4(i) (Effects of Controls) is given - depending on whether the customer wants to fly the aeroplane / is intending to start a PPL, or not.
If the aircraft is not under AOC and the pilot does not have a CPL and FI then the pilot must pay their share of the flight.
OC619
- If the punter is paying the entire cost of the flight the pilot needs a CPL
- If the aircraft is AOC then it can be a "pleasure flight"
- If the aircraft is not AOC is can only be done as a trial lesson "leading to the issue of a licence" and the pilot needs an FI rating in addition to a CPL
Usually either lesson 3 (Air Experience) or 4(i) (Effects of Controls) is given - depending on whether the customer wants to fly the aeroplane / is intending to start a PPL, or not.
If the aircraft is not under AOC and the pilot does not have a CPL and FI then the pilot must pay their share of the flight.
OC619
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trial Lessons at HGFC are exactly that - a lesson. A full pre-flight briefing is given and the person having the lesson is told that they will be operating the controls to the extent that anyone having a first lesson would. The flight is always with a FI. I would have thought that removed any doubt about the nature of the flight.
As for me, my first (unofficial) lesson, with a FI who did it as a special treat for me, was in a Seneca.
I later went on to learn at a completely different FTO as that one didn't have an aircraft suitable for me to learn in.
As for me, my first (unofficial) lesson, with a FI who did it as a special treat for me, was in a Seneca.
I later went on to learn at a completely different FTO as that one didn't have an aircraft suitable for me to learn in.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Down South, preferably inverted
Posts: 235
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji Abound
I never wanted to learn to fly. It had never occurred to me....and then.....
How about a trial aerobatic flight in a Bulldog, followed by 3 more over the next 2 months.......???
I'm now at SOLO NAV stage
So it can.....AND DOES........happen, that some people come to flying in a round about (loopy!) way.
.. .. .. and is the matter even more complex when it is a trial aerobatic flight - I dont suppose there are many people who really wanted to learn to fly who would start out with a trial lesson in an Extra 300.
How about a trial aerobatic flight in a Bulldog, followed by 3 more over the next 2 months.......???
I'm now at SOLO NAV stage
So it can.....AND DOES........happen, that some people come to flying in a round about (loopy!) way.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I am sure most people on here know, trial lessons run very close to the line in most cases (most being obvious pleasure flights in reality) but the CAA is not going to do anything about them because to do so would destroy the PPL flight training business, most of which desperately needs the income from trial lessons.
The problem arises because, in the UK, almost any regular aerial work needs an AOC, but an AOC (which is a great moneyspinner for the CAA) is so expensive to get and to keep - of the order of £20,000 as a baseline - that the "trial lesson" exemption had to be created to enable PPL flight training to stay in business.
The problem arises because, in the UK, almost any regular aerial work needs an AOC, but an AOC (which is a great moneyspinner for the CAA) is so expensive to get and to keep - of the order of £20,000 as a baseline - that the "trial lesson" exemption had to be created to enable PPL flight training to stay in business.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually to do a trial flight you only need an FI not a CPL......
Are you identifying the distinction between the pilot and the operator being paid?
Are you identifying the distinction between the pilot and the operator being paid?
This has obviously come to the CAA's attention again recently:
TRAININGCOM 1/2007
4. CAP 755 RECREATIONAL AVIATION ACTIVITIES MANUAL
There is a long-standing safety concern that some flight instructors are conducting flights on the basis that they are flying training, when in substance they are public transport flights and ought to be conducted under an AOC. This concern is particularly focused on the practice of offering 'trial lessons'. There is, in law, no such concept as a trial lesson; rather, there is a first flying lesson, which may or may not be followed by subsequent lessons. Consequently there are a number of companies offering vouchers for 'trial lessons' and such vouchers may be given as presents however:
TRAININGCOM 1/2007
4. CAP 755 RECREATIONAL AVIATION ACTIVITIES MANUAL
There is a long-standing safety concern that some flight instructors are conducting flights on the basis that they are flying training, when in substance they are public transport flights and ought to be conducted under an AOC. This concern is particularly focused on the practice of offering 'trial lessons'. There is, in law, no such concept as a trial lesson; rather, there is a first flying lesson, which may or may not be followed by subsequent lessons. Consequently there are a number of companies offering vouchers for 'trial lessons' and such vouchers may be given as presents however:
- The recipient of the voucher may have no interest in learning to fly, but may wish to have the experience of being flown in a light aircraft.
- From their point of view they will simply be a passenger being flown on a pleasure flight.
- They may not appreciate that the flight is being conducted as a flying lesson and that accordingly it does not comply with the stringent requirements for a public transport flight.
Last edited by BEagle; 24th Sep 2007 at 14:33.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now come on chaps you know you are writing rubbish.
Whilst I would never contend that there are a few who started flying after having a trial lesson (in fact me included) there are an awful lot of people who want a pleasure flight (and good for them too).
There is a huge difference between some one who might take their PPL and some one with no intention of doing so what so ever.
In most cases if you ask them they will give you a perfectly honest answer - after all, why wouldn’t they?
If you take a friend flying most of us know full well you might well explain to them quite a bit about how the aircraft works and what the controls do. You will probably let them do some of the flying as well. Was that a trial lesson? Did your friend have any intention at that point in time of learning to fly? I don’t think so in the majority of cases, and in those few exceptions, your freind probably set at the outset, I wouldn’t mind learning to be a pilot.
In many other areas of law the courts are asked to look at the defendant’s intent. In other words did the defendant start out with the intention of following a particular course of action. By definition when Jo public pitches up at the flying school was his intention to have a lesson because he thought he might well like to do a PPL or did he want to go for a pleasure flight?
The flying schools might even treat the person as if they were a student in terms of a full briefing etc but in many many cases both parties know full well the intention of the person was not to learn to fly.
Its bending the law as much as someone giving another pilot a lift and the other pilot buying the first a gift voucher after the flight.
I suspect you know it, and I know it, but it is still sad to see such double standards.
Whilst I would never contend that there are a few who started flying after having a trial lesson (in fact me included) there are an awful lot of people who want a pleasure flight (and good for them too).
There is a huge difference between some one who might take their PPL and some one with no intention of doing so what so ever.
In most cases if you ask them they will give you a perfectly honest answer - after all, why wouldn’t they?
If you take a friend flying most of us know full well you might well explain to them quite a bit about how the aircraft works and what the controls do. You will probably let them do some of the flying as well. Was that a trial lesson? Did your friend have any intention at that point in time of learning to fly? I don’t think so in the majority of cases, and in those few exceptions, your freind probably set at the outset, I wouldn’t mind learning to be a pilot.
In many other areas of law the courts are asked to look at the defendant’s intent. In other words did the defendant start out with the intention of following a particular course of action. By definition when Jo public pitches up at the flying school was his intention to have a lesson because he thought he might well like to do a PPL or did he want to go for a pleasure flight?
The flying schools might even treat the person as if they were a student in terms of a full briefing etc but in many many cases both parties know full well the intention of the person was not to learn to fly.
Its bending the law as much as someone giving another pilot a lift and the other pilot buying the first a gift voucher after the flight.
I suspect you know it, and I know it, but it is still sad to see such double standards.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 24th Sep 2007 at 15:02.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not this again................
What would be the benefit of not allowing the Ex.3, the air experience flight?
It would be impossible to police and if we had to vet every customer who came through the door. Flying schools would be closed within weeks.
The current system works fine, so what if the majority of people have no intention of continuing. That isn't the point. They are flying in aircraft maintained to the Public Transport Category and flown by qualified Flying Instructors. Why make an issue out of it?
How this can be seen as "dodgy" is beyond me. It isn't and it's just people being pedantic idiots that raise this up every so often.
The content of an "air experience flight" isn't defined and until it is the CAA can produce whatever they like in unreadable CAP's and messages from Trainingcom, but nobody is doing anything wrong as long as the a/c are suitable and the FI is qualified.
CAP755 mentions nothing of this and is probably the worst document I have read from the CAA. Like everything that comes from the belgrano recently, it is all advisory and quite frankly hopeless. Full of "shoulds" not "musts."
Another example is the advisory note about Single Power Lever Controls. Not law and nothing can be done if you ignore it. Not how they've written it though.
What would be the benefit of not allowing the Ex.3, the air experience flight?
It would be impossible to police and if we had to vet every customer who came through the door. Flying schools would be closed within weeks.
The current system works fine, so what if the majority of people have no intention of continuing. That isn't the point. They are flying in aircraft maintained to the Public Transport Category and flown by qualified Flying Instructors. Why make an issue out of it?
How this can be seen as "dodgy" is beyond me. It isn't and it's just people being pedantic idiots that raise this up every so often.
The content of an "air experience flight" isn't defined and until it is the CAA can produce whatever they like in unreadable CAP's and messages from Trainingcom, but nobody is doing anything wrong as long as the a/c are suitable and the FI is qualified.
CAP755 mentions nothing of this and is probably the worst document I have read from the CAA. Like everything that comes from the belgrano recently, it is all advisory and quite frankly hopeless. Full of "shoulds" not "musts."
Another example is the advisory note about Single Power Lever Controls. Not law and nothing can be done if you ignore it. Not how they've written it though.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS
I agree with you totally.
The fact is I dont think the CAA does.
The fact is if some one went on a trial lesson, there was an accident (God forbid), and they told the Court they had no intention what so ever of learning to fly, but every intention of taking part in a pleasure flight I suspect they might have a really good case.
The whole reason I raised the issue is because the law and its interpretation is in a mess.
When a fellow pilot offers to take another pilot to collect his aircraft and meet the cost to me it would seem quite clear the intention is not to run a charter business but there are those very quick to point out it is illegal, whereas when a flying school offers trial lessons to members of the public which are commonly perceived to be pleasure flights the commercial community are very happy to claim it is all totally above board.
Is that double standards?
I agree with you totally.
The fact is I dont think the CAA does.
The fact is if some one went on a trial lesson, there was an accident (God forbid), and they told the Court they had no intention what so ever of learning to fly, but every intention of taking part in a pleasure flight I suspect they might have a really good case.
The whole reason I raised the issue is because the law and its interpretation is in a mess.
When a fellow pilot offers to take another pilot to collect his aircraft and meet the cost to me it would seem quite clear the intention is not to run a charter business but there are those very quick to point out it is illegal, whereas when a flying school offers trial lessons to members of the public which are commonly perceived to be pleasure flights the commercial community are very happy to claim it is all totally above board.
Is that double standards?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most schools make very little from "trial lessons", but I can't agree with you Fuji that we in the industry are doing anything against the law.
A punter walks in and wants to fly. If you ask them wht they want to do and they say "I just want to take some aerial photos" and aren't interested in anything else, then that would be dodgy. He learnt nothing.
However, someone who has been bought a lesson for their birthday, turns up, is briefed and then is given every opportunity to "have a go" whilst having the aircraft explained to them. EVen if they don't ouch the controls once, they leave with more knowledge of aviation than they arrived with.
That is an air experience flight and as I mentioned, until the content of that flight is defined, then noone is breaking the rules unless they are obviously imitating an AOC flight.
A "pleasure flight" doesn't allow anyone to have a go on the controls or have any explanations of how it all works. Ex 3 whilst not having anything laid down, does tend to push the idea that some form of learning goes on.
A punter walks in and wants to fly. If you ask them wht they want to do and they say "I just want to take some aerial photos" and aren't interested in anything else, then that would be dodgy. He learnt nothing.
However, someone who has been bought a lesson for their birthday, turns up, is briefed and then is given every opportunity to "have a go" whilst having the aircraft explained to them. EVen if they don't ouch the controls once, they leave with more knowledge of aviation than they arrived with.
That is an air experience flight and as I mentioned, until the content of that flight is defined, then noone is breaking the rules unless they are obviously imitating an AOC flight.
A "pleasure flight" doesn't allow anyone to have a go on the controls or have any explanations of how it all works. Ex 3 whilst not having anything laid down, does tend to push the idea that some form of learning goes on.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect you are all missing the point, or, more probably I am making it badly.
A friend of mine was bought a trail lesson for his birthday a few years back. I know he had no intention what so ever of learning to fly. The people who bought him the lesson thought they were buying a pleasure flight. My friend thought he was getting a pleasure flight.
Did he and his friends think the flight would be conducted to the same standard as a commercial operation - who knows, but the CAA would tell them, if it were a pleasure flight, then most certainly it would have been.
The problem is that the regulations exist because the public are entitled to assume legislation is in place to protect them. Now, rightly or wrongly, the CAA obvioulsy believe a diffferent standard needs to be set for a pleasure flight and a trial lesson - that is why the law is written as it is.
On the other hand referring to the other thread on Prune consider how the circumstances differ. Two pilots agree to share a flight to enable the first to collect his aircraft. That is the sole purpose of the flight. The first pilot kindly agrees to give up his time, and the second pilot agrees to pay the cost. Now both pilots are qualified, they understand all about the risks involved in flying light aircraft and are taking a fully informed decision between two consenting and informed adults. On the other hand Jo public who turns up for a pleasure flight masquerading as a trail lesson knows nothing of the risks involved and assumes the CAA is there to protect him. They are neither informed nor perhaps are they consenting to the service they think is being provided.
That is why I think the law is daft!
A friend of mine was bought a trail lesson for his birthday a few years back. I know he had no intention what so ever of learning to fly. The people who bought him the lesson thought they were buying a pleasure flight. My friend thought he was getting a pleasure flight.
Did he and his friends think the flight would be conducted to the same standard as a commercial operation - who knows, but the CAA would tell them, if it were a pleasure flight, then most certainly it would have been.
The problem is that the regulations exist because the public are entitled to assume legislation is in place to protect them. Now, rightly or wrongly, the CAA obvioulsy believe a diffferent standard needs to be set for a pleasure flight and a trial lesson - that is why the law is written as it is.
On the other hand referring to the other thread on Prune consider how the circumstances differ. Two pilots agree to share a flight to enable the first to collect his aircraft. That is the sole purpose of the flight. The first pilot kindly agrees to give up his time, and the second pilot agrees to pay the cost. Now both pilots are qualified, they understand all about the risks involved in flying light aircraft and are taking a fully informed decision between two consenting and informed adults. On the other hand Jo public who turns up for a pleasure flight masquerading as a trail lesson knows nothing of the risks involved and assumes the CAA is there to protect him. They are neither informed nor perhaps are they consenting to the service they think is being provided.
That is why I think the law is daft!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The people who bought him the lesson thought they were buying a pleasure flight.
