Recent CAA doc. regarding instruction in P to F aircraft
Thread Starter
Recent CAA doc. regarding instruction in P to F aircraft
I find the exemption in ORS4_803 confusing. I am concerned at the definition of "club environment". Our group is split over 2 clubs. Is a taildragger group to be restricted from using a strip which a club does not approve for its members renting its nosewheel aircraft? And the "no pilot maintanance" requirements of ORS4_804 seem to preclude most of the instruction intended.
ORS4_803
“3 c) The person undergoing instruction or testing must hold an appropriate licence to act as pilot in command of the flight save that their licence does not include a valid certificate of test, experience or revalidation as required by Article 66, 67, 68 or 69 of the Order.”
“Exemption The CAA, in exercise of its powers under Article 242 of the Order, exempts the person undergoing instruction or testing in accordance with the above permission from the requirement” at Article 50 of the Order to hold an appropriate licence.
“This permission applies only to aircraft which are both jointly owned and in a club environment. Article 259(2) defines a club environment as meaning where an aircraft owned by, operated by or operated under arrangements entered into by a flying club of which both the instructor or examiner and student or examinee are members. So to comply with this permission, the joint owners will need to enter into arrangements with a flying club such that the aircraft is operated by or operated under arrangements with that flying club.”
ORS4_4
“2 c) For aircraft with a maximum take-off weight authorised not exceeding 2730 kg, whenever a flight pursuant to this exemption is conducted in a non-EASA aircraft, the last scheduled maintenance inspection prior to the flight shall have been certified by an appropriately licensed engineer or suitably approved organisation who shall have issued a Certificate of Release to Service in respect thereof.”
“2d) At the time of any flight pursuant to this exemption in a non-EASA there shall have been no pilot maintenance carried out since the maintenance inspection referred to in sub-paragraph c) above.”
ORS4_803
“3 c) The person undergoing instruction or testing must hold an appropriate licence to act as pilot in command of the flight save that their licence does not include a valid certificate of test, experience or revalidation as required by Article 66, 67, 68 or 69 of the Order.”
“Exemption The CAA, in exercise of its powers under Article 242 of the Order, exempts the person undergoing instruction or testing in accordance with the above permission from the requirement” at Article 50 of the Order to hold an appropriate licence.
“This permission applies only to aircraft which are both jointly owned and in a club environment. Article 259(2) defines a club environment as meaning where an aircraft owned by, operated by or operated under arrangements entered into by a flying club of which both the instructor or examiner and student or examinee are members. So to comply with this permission, the joint owners will need to enter into arrangements with a flying club such that the aircraft is operated by or operated under arrangements with that flying club.”
ORS4_4
“2 c) For aircraft with a maximum take-off weight authorised not exceeding 2730 kg, whenever a flight pursuant to this exemption is conducted in a non-EASA aircraft, the last scheduled maintenance inspection prior to the flight shall have been certified by an appropriately licensed engineer or suitably approved organisation who shall have issued a Certificate of Release to Service in respect thereof.”
“2d) At the time of any flight pursuant to this exemption in a non-EASA there shall have been no pilot maintenance carried out since the maintenance inspection referred to in sub-paragraph c) above.”
Last edited by Maoraigh1; 11th Jul 2010 at 08:01. Reason: Format
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
No. That's where I got the links to ORS4_ 802 to 804. The press release is clear, but the CAA documents seem different. And they overrule a press release.
804 is a reissue of a long-standing exemption to allow joint owners of aircraft with a private C of A to do tests and paid refresher training in their own aircraft. It doesn't have much relevance these days, though I suppose it does technically permit the pilot undergoing the training to be pilot-in-command, which might be useful in some circumstances.
Only 802 and 803 are relevant to permit aircraft:
802 permits paid training for any purpose (other than instruction for a licence or rating) where the pilot already holds an appropriate licence and rating
803 permits paid training and testing for the purpose of revalidation etc. where the pilot doesn't hold a current rating
Only 802 and 803 are relevant to permit aircraft:
802 permits paid training for any purpose (other than instruction for a licence or rating) where the pilot already holds an appropriate licence and rating
803 permits paid training and testing for the purpose of revalidation etc. where the pilot doesn't hold a current rating
“This permission applies only to aircraft which are both jointly owned and in a club environment. Article 259(2) defines a club environment as meaning where an aircraft owned by, operated by or operated under arrangements entered into by a flying club of which both the instructor or examiner and student or examinee are members. So to comply with this permission, the joint owners will need to enter into arrangements with a flying club such that the aircraft is operated by or operated under arrangements with that flying club.”
Meaning of aerial work
259
259
If you look at the privileges of a Flight Instructor ANO Sched 7 you will see that all instruction has to be given in a club of which both parties are members. That poses an interesting question regarding all the approved FTOs which are not flying clubs and the CAA's own examiners who are not members of clubs, so in essence they all act illegally. Fortunately, with no legal definition, a club is anything you want it to be, i.e. two persons with common interest will do.
Article 259(2) does not define a club or a club environment;
(3) Aerial work consists of instruction or testing in a club environment if it consists of the
giving of instruction in flying or the conducting of flying tests for the purposes of this
Order in an aircraft owned by, operated by 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.
But it still doesn't offer any guidance as to what a "club" is.
If you look at the privileges of a Flight Instructor ANO Sched 7 you will see that all instruction has to be given in a club of which both parties are members.
I can't find any such restriction.
It is interesting, but irrelevant, that the phrase occurs also in relation to the privileges of the UK and JAA CPL(A) (but not the CPL(H)); irrelevant because, in both cases, the phrase is preceded by the privilege to conduct aerial work flights without restriction. Consequently, it is incorrect to suggest that instructors employed by FTOs (who hold CPLs) or the Authority's FEs are acting illegally - as stated in Schedule 7, they are "entitled to act....in a club environment" but they are not required to do so.
Thread Starter
Am I wrong in thinking 804 says that, once any pilot permitted maintanance has been done, a group owned aircraft cannot be used for revalidation, etc?
And age does not invalid legal restrictions.
And age does not invalid legal restrictions.
Am I wrong in thinking 804 says that, once any pilot permitted maintanance has been done, a group owned aircraft cannot be used for revalidation, etc?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ANO contains no definition of a Flying Club! If it did it would be in Article 255 Interpretation.
If you look at the privileges of a Flight Instructor ANO Sched 7 you will see that all instruction has to be given in a club of which both parties are members. That poses an interesting question regarding all the approved FTOs which are not flying clubs and the CAA's own examiners who are not members of clubs, so in essence they all act illegally. Fortunately, with no legal definition, a club is anything you want it to be, i.e. two persons with common interest will do.
If you look at the privileges of a Flight Instructor ANO Sched 7 you will see that all instruction has to be given in a club of which both parties are members. That poses an interesting question regarding all the approved FTOs which are not flying clubs and the CAA's own examiners who are not members of clubs, so in essence they all act illegally. Fortunately, with no legal definition, a club is anything you want it to be, i.e. two persons with common interest will do.
I doubt the CAA are keen to define "club" anytime soon
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You seem more than somewhat confused. Your initial post refers to P to F aircraft and then you start quoting stuff relating to C of A aircraft.
The general principles are related to the purpose of the flight. What follows is broadbrush and does not cover every combination of factors.
Under the ANO if any payment is made other than for the services of the pilot it's Aerial Work and the a/c has to be maintained to PT standards.
If you are the owner of the a/c you don't have to pay anyone to use it and if you pay in instructor it is a Private Flight and not Aerial Work.
If the a/c is jointly owned then you pay the group for the use of the a/c and if you then also pay the instructor it becomes Aerial Work. Since a P to F a/c is not maintained to PT standards it cannot be used for Aerial Work. It therefore follows that you cannot use a jointly owned P to F a/c for paid instruction. The ORS exemptions allow you to pay an instructor in certain circumstances without making it Aerial Work, thereby permitting instruction in jointly owned P to F a/c.
The exemptions relating to C of A aircraft are there to permit paid instruction in C of A aircraft that do not meet PT standards, e.g. if they have an engine that is being run "on condition".
As to where the training takes place, that's down to the PIC, which in the cases envisaged by the exemptions is the Instructor.
The general principles are related to the purpose of the flight. What follows is broadbrush and does not cover every combination of factors.
Under the ANO if any payment is made other than for the services of the pilot it's Aerial Work and the a/c has to be maintained to PT standards.
If you are the owner of the a/c you don't have to pay anyone to use it and if you pay in instructor it is a Private Flight and not Aerial Work.
If the a/c is jointly owned then you pay the group for the use of the a/c and if you then also pay the instructor it becomes Aerial Work. Since a P to F a/c is not maintained to PT standards it cannot be used for Aerial Work. It therefore follows that you cannot use a jointly owned P to F a/c for paid instruction. The ORS exemptions allow you to pay an instructor in certain circumstances without making it Aerial Work, thereby permitting instruction in jointly owned P to F a/c.
The exemptions relating to C of A aircraft are there to permit paid instruction in C of A aircraft that do not meet PT standards, e.g. if they have an engine that is being run "on condition".
As to where the training takes place, that's down to the PIC, which in the cases envisaged by the exemptions is the Instructor.
bookworm
Art 259(3) still does not define a club. From Sched 7:
UK CPL
UK BCPL:
JAA CPL
NPPL
The phrase "club environment" has in the latest ANO replaced the earlier phrase "in a flying club of which both are members" It doesn't appear in Helicopter licences!
Quite right. Historically, it goes back to the days when AOCs were first introduced. All flying involving passengers required an AOC, the two exceptions were private flights and flying clubs!
Art 259(3) still does not define a club. From Sched 7:
UK CPL
(5) Subject to paragraph (6), the holder is entitled to fly as pilot in command of an aeroplane of a type or class specified in an instructor’s rating included in the licence on a flight for the purpose of aerial work which consists of instruction or testing in a club environment.
(4) Subject to paragraph (5), the holder is entitled to fly as pilot in command of an aeroplane of a type or class specified in an instructor’s rating included in the licence on an aerial work flight which consists of instruction or testing in a club environment.
(4) Subject to paragraph (5), the holder is entitled to fly as pilot in command of an aeroplane of a type or class specified in any flying instructor’s rating, class rating instructor rating, flight instructor rating or assistant flying instructor’s rating included in the licence on an aerial work flight which consists of instruction or testing in a club environment.
(5) The circumstances secondly referred to in paragraph (3) are that the holder flies such an aeroplane for the purposes of aerial work which consists of instruction or testing in a club environment provided that, in the case of instruction, the licence includes a flying instructor’s rating or an assistant flying instructor’s rating.
I doubt the CAA are keen to define "club" anytime soon
Last edited by Whopity; 12th Jul 2010 at 07:10.
Whopity
As BillieBob explained, that does not limit instruction to a club environment. The CPL is already entitled to fly as pilot in command of an aerial work flight in a class or type included in his CPL. There is no limitation to clubs. The paragraphs that you quote permit him to fly as pilot in command of an aerial work flight in a class or type included in his instructor rating (but not, by implication, his CPL) in equivalent circumstances to a PPL.
As BillieBob explained, that does not limit instruction to a club environment. The CPL is already entitled to fly as pilot in command of an aerial work flight in a class or type included in his CPL. There is no limitation to clubs. The paragraphs that you quote permit him to fly as pilot in command of an aerial work flight in a class or type included in his instructor rating (but not, by implication, his CPL) in equivalent circumstances to a PPL.
Just to clarify:
UK BCPL(A)
Note: 'subject to paragraphs (3) and (7)' but not to paragraph (4), which is where the reference to 'club environment' resides.
UK CPL(A)
Note: 'subject to paragraphs (4) and (8)' but not to paragraph (5), which is where the reference to 'club environment' resides.
JAA CPL(A)
Note: no caveats whatsoever.
The only instructors restricted to teaching only in a club environment are those holding a UK PPL(A), PPL(H) or NPPL(H). The holder of a JAA PPL(A) may only be remunerated if teaching in a club environment but there is no restriction on where he or she may teach without remuneration
UK BCPL(A)
Subject to paragraphs (3) and (7), the holder is entitled to fly as pilot in command of an aeroplane of a type or class on which the holder is so qualified and which is specified in an aircraft rating included in the licence when the aeroplane is flying on a flight for any purpose whatsoever.
UK CPL(A)
Subject to paragraphs (4) and (8), the holder is entitled to fly as pilot in command of an aeroplane of a type or class on which the holder is so qualified and which is specified in an aircraft rating included in the licence when the aeroplane is flying on a flight for any purpose whatsoever.
JAA CPL(A)
act as pilot in command or co-pilot of any aeroplane specified in a type or class rating included in Part XII of the licence on an aerial work or private flight;
The only instructors restricted to teaching only in a club environment are those holding a UK PPL(A), PPL(H) or NPPL(H). The holder of a JAA PPL(A) may only be remunerated if teaching in a club environment but there is no restriction on where he or she may teach without remuneration
I accept that, however it seems rather pointless to include such a statement in the privileges of a commercial licence when it is only there to cover the vague possibility that the holder might use the licence to exercise PPL privileges. The BCPL (R) holder is also restricted to giving instruction in a club; not surprising the Restriction page is usually lost.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is nothing to do with CPL privileges at all. It is absolutely and ENTIRELY to do with the purpose of the flight and following on from that the airworthiness standards that are required of the aircraft that is to be used.
If you do Aerial Work then the a/c must have a C of A and be maintained to PT standards.
The exemptions allow an aircraft that does not conform to the standards required for Aerial Work to be used by making the flight a Private Flight rather than Aerial Work in certain defined circumstances. It's nothing whatsoever to do with the privileges of the PIC and everything to do with the purpose of the flight. If it's a Private Flight the PIC can be a PPL, BCPL, CPL, or ATPL and if he has the requisite rating he can instruct. Whether or not he can be remunerated will be dependent on his licence privileges.
If you do Aerial Work then the a/c must have a C of A and be maintained to PT standards.
The exemptions allow an aircraft that does not conform to the standards required for Aerial Work to be used by making the flight a Private Flight rather than Aerial Work in certain defined circumstances. It's nothing whatsoever to do with the privileges of the PIC and everything to do with the purpose of the flight. If it's a Private Flight the PIC can be a PPL, BCPL, CPL, or ATPL and if he has the requisite rating he can instruct. Whether or not he can be remunerated will be dependent on his licence privileges.
Thread Starter
Can anyone point me to an exemption to the red print below? Am I wrong in thinking "Non EASA" means or includes Annexe 2 aircraft?
ORS4_4
“2 c) For aircraft with a maximum take-off weight authorised not exceeding 2730 kg, whenever a flight pursuant to this exemption is conducted in a non-EASA aircraft, the last scheduled maintenance inspection prior to the flight shall have been certified by an appropriately licensed engineer or suitably approved organisation who shall have issued a Certificate of Release to Service in respect thereof.”
“2d) At the time of any flight pursuant to this exemption in a non-EASA there shall have been no pilot maintenance carried out since the maintenance inspection referred to in sub-paragraph c) above.”
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'EASA aircraft' means an aircraft which is required by the Basic EASA Regulation and any implementing rules adopted by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation to hold an EASA certificate of airworthiness, an EASA restricted certificate of airworthiness or an EASA permit to fly;
ORS4_4 doesn't exist, I think you mean ORS4 No 804, which applies when
b) The aircraft is operated and maintained in accordance with, in the case of an EASA aircraft, the airworthiness provisions of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No. 2042/2003
or, in the case of a non-EASA aircraft, the airworthiness provisions of Part 3 of the Order applicable to private flight.
or, in the case of a non-EASA aircraft, the airworthiness provisions of Part 3 of the Order applicable to private flight.
Last edited by Mike Cross; 12th Jul 2010 at 21:55.
Isn't about time someone told Sir Humphrey to use language which any normal person can reasonably understand instead of ANO legal weasel-speak?
I'm fed up with all the double negatives, the 'shall not unless' and other tortuous phraseology used in the ANO, AICs and ORS documentation.
"Speak English!!"
I'm fed up with all the double negatives, the 'shall not unless' and other tortuous phraseology used in the ANO, AICs and ORS documentation.
"Speak English!!"
