further training on private aircraft

[jxc]

I have recently bought into a share on a F172 I am a PPL holder am i able to take training like the IMC using it or does it depand on insurance etc ?
I have asked one of the group members and says it cant be done and speaking to someone else says yes you can. What should i be looking for in the paperwork

Cheers

[Redbird72]

The answer is in the insurance certificate for the aircraft; if it does not allow "continuation training" or "further training of named pilots" under the permitted uses then it is likely that you would not be covered.

However, it is possible that the insurance could be extended to allow it without additional premium changing hands. In that case (subject to the other members being in agreement) you should have a chat with the group's insurance broker.

The only other possible issue is if the share agreement excludes training - don't know if that is common or not?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm not very up to speed on this, but I believe it'll be on an EASA CofA which variously does, or does not, permit public transport use (which includes remunerated training) depending upon the maintenance regime in force.

The odds are that as a private syndicate, you are under the lower regime, equivalent to the old UK private category CofA, which does not permit training.

Your maintenance organisation can probably tell you much more than I can.

G

[jxc]

As far as i understand i can do renewals with an instructor on it and if I had an IMC rating that could be renewed yearly on it also ?

[Whopity]

If the aircraft is maintained to public transport standards then you can receive remunerated training on it for the IMC.

If it is maintained to private standards and it is group owned, then you cannot receive remunerated training on it but, could receive unremunerated training, if you could find an instructor who works for nothing.

That covers the legal side. The insurance requirements will then be as stated on the policy.

[Islander2]

If it is maintained to private standards and it is group owned, then you cannot receive remunerated training on it

A small clarification needs to be made to Whopity's post. You can receive remunerated flying training on it, provided that the flying training 'excludes instruction in flying given for the purposes of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot's licence or the inclusion or variation of any rating in a licence and any flying test required by or under the ANO other than that for a certificate of test, experience or revalidation.'

This is the annual exemption the CAA issues from the Article 162 public transport provisions of the ANO, as currently promulgated through ORS 4/733.

[jxc]

I have been reading Summary of the meaning of public transport and aerial work
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1428/summa..._transport.pdf

and under section 2 the general rules point 2.1.2

It says you can pay for an instructor on private aircraft for flight crew licensing even though it is aerial work


Am I reading it right or I am being a Muppet

Cheers

[Slopey]

I looked into this recently, and iirc (although knowing the usual amount of incorrect advice in the aviation world), you can't be trained in the aircraft for the initial grant of the IMC, however, once it was issued, you could use the aircraft to revalidate. i.e. as per Islander2's post.

Obviously, you'll also need it to have the correct instrument fit/FM immune etc.

[jxc]

The plane is used for IMC already by other pilots in the group

[Johnm]

2.1.2 If the only payment involved is the payment of the pilot, the flight is deemed to be private for airworthiness purposes (although it will still be aerial work for other purposes, e.g. flight crew licensing). This enables a private owner to pay a flying instructor for a flying lesson in his own aircraft even though the continuing airworthiness requirements that would be applicable to public transport aircraft may not have been applied.

That seems pretty clear to me but begs the question as to why group ownership appears to be treated slightly differently to individual ownership?

[Redbird72]

The prohibition for group owned aircraft:

5.5.3 It should be noted that this exception can only be relied upon if the only payments are those made within the group relating to the direct and annual costs of operation. No other payments can be made if it is wished to rely on this exemption. In particular, a member of the group cannot pay an instructor to train him in the group owned aircraft. (However, see AIC 7/2004 (White 94) which allows a joint owner to undertake flight tests and pilot licence renewal/revalidation flights.)

It sounds to me that they are trying to prevent a flying club benefitting from the "Jointly Owned Aircraft" exemption.

Apologies if my earlier post was misleading; my knowledge about "continuation training" was based on single owned, corporate and commercial aircraft.

[Islander2]

begs the question as to why group ownership appears to be treated slightly differently to individual ownership?

Whilst not answering your question, I can say that is how it has long been. Own an aeroplane outright that is maintained to private airworthiness standards, and you can undertake training for the grant of a licence or rating, own a share in such an aeroplane through a group arrangement and you cannot.

[S-Works]

When does a group become a group? Is a partnership a group or does it become a group at 3 or more?

[IO540]

It sounds to me that they are trying to prevent a flying club benefitting from the "Jointly Owned Aircraft" exemption.

Yes, it's all about preventing schools (clubs, same thing) operating their fleets on the Private CofA, as it used to be called.

The overriding principle is to keep a lid on competition with AOC holders, who moan like hell to the CAA at any alleged transgression they come across. One can charitably call it a desire to maintain a level of safety which paying passengers can reasonably expect.

This directly leads to a debate on how many accidents are attributable to the difference between the two levels of maintenance.... a very thin ice skating proposition because in the rest of Europe they don't have these restrictions and don't have a problem