instruction in a permit aircraft

[steveking]

I think it's the case that you can be instructed in your own permit aircraft as long as the instructor does it free of charge. With this in mind i have been thinking about doing the IMC course for some time now. I would assume that if I could do some or all of the IMC course in a permit aircraft then this would be OK as it's still done VFR. I have a friend who is an examiner and also teaches the IMC course and he has said that he would be happy to teach me for free and also confirmed that we can do the course all VFR.

Anyone else had experience of this?

Thanks

Steve

[GyroSteve]

Instruction in permit aircraft

Steve

An instructor can charge you for training in a permit aircraft as long as you are the sole owner of it (ie it's not group owned). A bit of searching in the CAA website will produce chapetr and verse on the subject.

Can't comment on the IMC training.

[steveking]

Thanks for the reply steve,

I have just found this,

Certain other activities which would normally be classed as aerial work may be carried
out by Permit to Fly aircraft subject to specific limitations as follows:
a) The towing of gliders and hang gliders by microlight aeroplanes; and
b) Flights classed as private under Article 130(1)(b) of the ANO, undertaken for the
purpose of giving instruction, when the only payment made is for the services of
an instructor.

No mention at all about any limitations on what type of course.

I have heard about the sole owner requirement before but can't seem to find that anywhere yet. I do own my RV with one friend, not sure if that becomes a group or is just co-owned.

[Whopity]

If he does it for free then it ceases to be aerial work and there is nothing to prevent you doing it.

[IO540]

What happened to the long standing rule about no instruction in a Private CofA plane for the initial award of a license or a rating?

Payment to the instructor didn't come into that one, IIRC.

One could do it however if the student was the owner or his/her spouse.

I know the Private CofA cat has now gone, so presumably the maintenance regime is the determining factor?

[Genghis the Engineer]

IO540 - the obvious flaw with that rule is that the private/public divide in CsofA has become rather blurred post-EASA.


Generally however, I believe that the sole ownership (and immediate family) rule still applies to Permit and private-maintained CofA aircraft. For permit aircraft, try page 30 of CAP 733

G

[steveking]

I've read through Cap 733, can't seem to find anything about sole ownership or for initial license or rating. In fact it doesn't seem to have that much detail on it at all. Cap 733 seems a little out of date as several references are made to the PFA rather than the now LAA.

The LAA website seems to have a cut down version of the CAA's CAP 733, so even less info.

It would be nice if i could get enough info to get the go ahead for it as I have thought about doing the IMC for some time now and the thought of being able to do it in my own aircraft is much more inspiring.

[Genghis the Engineer]

CAP733 is slightly out of date, but not renaming the PFA (which the entire industry still calls it and probably will for many years) the LAA is no particular reason to push out a document amendment.

Anyhow CAP733, page 30

1.5 Certain other activities which would normally be classed as aerial work may be carried
out by Permit to Fly aircraft subject to specific limitations as follows:

a) The towing of gliders and hang gliders by microlight aeroplanes; and

b) Flights classed as private under Article 130(1)(b) of the ANO, undertaken for the purpose of giving instruction, when the only payment made is for the services of an instructor.

Unfortunately, the ANO has been completely restructured since CAP733 was last amended (and that certainly would be a good reason to update it), however a quick look in the current ANO finds me article 11 which is the least problematic:

With the permission of the CAA, an aircraft flying in accordance with a national permit to fly may fly for the purpose of aerial work which consists of the giving of instruction in flying or the conduct of flying tests, subject to the aircraft being owned or operated under arrangements entered into by a flying club of which the person giving the instruction or conducting the test and the person receiving the instruction or undergoing the test are both members.

That gets you a bit of the way, but the old "sole ownership rule" does rather seem to have disappeared into the ether at some point in the last couple of years - presumably between AN2000 and the new AN2008.

I think, on the whole, that you need to ask the PFA/LAA/Those_nice_chaps_at_Turweston, or failing that CAA.

G

[Say again s l o w l y]

Having done this a few times and using a very friendly, but extremely thorough CAA Ops inspector for the tests, then as long as you are the sole owner, then away you go.

My understanding is exactly as Genghis'.On each occasion I've asked the nice man from the CAA and there has never been an issue, though I do have a chat before starting anything just in case.

It's mental that there should be any issue, but there you are. Welcome to GA flying in the UK.

[steveking]

SAS

Could you tell me who or what dept you spoke to at the CAA. Be nice to speak to someone who has already given the green light before.

I do have the added issue that I own the RV with one other person but as Genghis has said the sole owner bit seems to have disapeared.
Although at a push I could get my friend to sign the aircraft over to me for a while he'd still be on the insurance just have to sign it back after the course, seems a bit stupid.

Genghis

Both I and the examiner/instructor are both members of the same flying club at Southend so if that requirement applys we should be ok there.


Thanks for the replys, I can see that some of them are not off the cuff and require a bit of research.

Much appreciated.

[BEagle]

Permit to Fly aircraft are restricted to flight by day and in accordance with Visual Flight Rules (VFR) unless the prior permission of the CAA has been obtained. Permission for flights under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) will only be given in exceptional circumstances, such as to meet a long distance ferry requirement.

So why would you be intending to take the IMC Rating course in such an aeroplane?

[steveking]

The instructor has said that we can carry out the course VMC. There are many reasons for me wanting to do the IMC, personel achievment just one of them. There are a lot of benifits to the VFR minimums by having the IMC even in a permit aircraft. And to be honest one of the reasons that has put me off from doing it so far is the thought of doing another course in the crusty old school machines.

At the end of the day I have my own aircraft, if I can do it in my machine then why not, just need to find out if it's possible.

[Jim59]

I tend towards the view that even if it is possible to do the whole course in VMC it is highly desirable to do as much as possible in IMC. Unless you have really good screens (which you won't in your own aircraft) there is enough inadvertent peripheral vision with foggles etc. to mean that your experience will not the same as the real thing. You will always have the nagging doubt about whether you will be able to hack it in true IMC.
There may well be the day when you need to use your IMC rating for real (perhaps in an aeroplane that is permitted and suitable equipped) and for that to be the first time that you have ever flown in IMC is probably undesirable!

Having said that you will learn a lot and enjoy it regardless.

[IO540]

Unless you have really good screens (which you won't in your own aircraft) there is enough inadvertent peripheral vision with foggles etc. to mean that your experience will not the same as the real thing

That is true but not in the "cheating" sense. The little glimpses of the ground one can see from under the hood are IME completely useless for navigation.

Anyway having an instructor on board changes the whole "flying experience" for many people. I find flying with an instructor on board pretty difficult.

As regards using the IMCR in a Permit plane, 3 reasons right away:

1) Navigation in legal VFR vis (1500m or 3000m, according to where your license was issued, and airspace) is practically impossible without using radio nav. A nice hazy English summer day, anybody?

2) The IMCR removes the need to be in sight of the surface, and this is valid worldwide and for any aircraft type. This enables VMC on top flight, which is dead handy for long range European touring. It gets you into sunshine and out of the "scud running" trap which UK licensed PPLs are pushed into.

3) Radio nav makes for a confident, low cockpit workload, and accurate way to navigate, or even just to back up the GPS if you like - much better than dead reckoning.

Flying your own plane, maintained to your own standards, you will be a much more current and competent pilot than somebody renting a piece of IFR-legal wreckage for a few hours a year.

[steveking]

Jim

Thanks very much for your comments and I do agree with what you say. Ideally a nice equipped aircraft and carrying most of the course out IMC would be great, But doing it in my own aircraft will probally be the difference between me doing the course or not. I keep talking about it but never seem to get round to it, I suppose because I fly a permit aircraft the reward for having the rating is much smaller. That said it is something I would like to do, I have done over 500hrs in just under 3 years now so I have flown in some interesting conditions and could probally cope well in IMC, so doing the course under the hood or in IMC doesn't bother me to much.
My aircraft is well equipped and it all works unlike most of the school aircraft, so I'm happy with that. In a lot of ways my aircraft would be more demanding, wobbly prop, high performance etc so I'd still have my work cut out for me.

Again thanks for your comments, all appreciated.

steve

[GyroSteve]

AIC 18/2007 (white 133) may clarify (!) the situation .....

[steveking]

Hmm, that's a bit harder reading. It seems to be exemptions for C of A aircraft I think. It seems to be quite different to the CAP 733 I read earlier.

I suppose I'll have to phone the CAA but you know what it's like sometimes when you ask it's an automatic "NO" especially when it's an area that's slightly grey.

[AJMortimer]

From experience the issues I should consider would include:

CAA approval - I recently flew a group owned single to meet the Man from the CAA to have a 'once over' and its documents checked. No problem (the CAA were perfectly pleasant), but it was required in order for me to receive instruction in (remember the Weight and Balance Schedule - often missed!;

Instruction to be carried out to/from a licensed aerodrome - obvious, but maybe an issue on a Permit aircraft?;

Insurance - make sure you're covered for flying instruction and that ALL liability is covered. Is the instructor 'self employed' or could it be construed s/he is employed by a flying school or club? No payment doesn't necessarily mean 'no employment' or 'no liability', nor does it mean no 'aerial work'.

The simple answer is ask the interested parties - I got so much mis-information from those who I thought were in the know until I spoke to the 'horse's mouth' - the CAA and aircraft insurers in my case. In fact that is a 'must' if you want to sleep (and fly) easy!

Just a thought?!

AJ

[C42]

Generally however, I believe that the sole ownership (and immediate family) rule still applies to Permit and private-maintained CofA aircraft. For permit aircraft, try page 30 of CAP 733

We could always get hitched Steve, i will be the butch one though, you look better in a skirt

Dave

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by steveking

Hmm, that's a bit harder reading. It seems to be exemptions for C of A aircraft I think. It seems to be quite different to the CAP 733 I read earlier.

I suppose I'll have to phone the CAA but you know what it's like sometimes when you ask it's an automatic "NO" especially when it's an area that's slightly grey.

I'd strongly recommend trying LAA/PFA rather than CAA. Apart from the fact that they're a heck of a lot easier to communicate with, they're familiar with all problems involved in operating permit aircraft, they're on your side and also have a full time job of communicating with the CAA and getting the right answers.

G