Motorgliding - BGA or CAA directly controlled maintenance and instructors?

[soaringsilently]

Sorry to post the list of questions here, but I am guessing someone will know the answers.

I want to get my PPL ( a proper PPL not a NPPL) using a TMG, that I then convert to a JAR PPL ( or EASA PPL as it will be) I have been around several (three to date) motorglider clubs and have been told at one club I approcahed that both the instructors and the maintenance is controlled by the BGA. They use Slingsby T61 Ventures) I have read on here that the instructors have to hold a CPL, yet these guys don't .(they are paid by the club - but they say its for "clerical duties"), they tell me they have PPL's and fly on a concession to allow them to instruct with a BGA, rather than a CAA instructors rating. Will this change with the new EASA regulations? I also saw these instructors teaching a doing trial lessons in a Warrior- does their BGA instructors rating allow them to do this?? Nice big airfield though which is always a bonus I think.

Will the standard of instructing be the same as going to a flying club that uses commercially licensed pilots with CAA instructors ratings?

Another point which was raised by a friend of mine (who is a pilot employed commercially) was that the engines are maintained on an "on condition" basis rather than to a set life - is this correct? Why can the motor glider club do this when the flying school I had approached told me that part of their seemingly higher cost is due to them having a set number of hours/years life for the engine? Just waiting around and chatting at this club I was told of several engine failures and plugs blowing out etc etc which all seem alittle worrying!.

I did go to another club that advertises "Trial Lessons" and frankly was worried when I listened to the controls creaking and groaning as the instructor moved them before the engine was started. All that club seems to do is trial lessons and they are listed as a BGA club on the BGA website, Is this normal?

The third club ( a CAA approved school and not a BGA club) I went to is some way further south east in the midlands, but has recently gone all CAA. They say their aircraft are maintained by a CAA organisation rather than the BGA and all their instructors are CAA commercial guys. They also had a range of Pipers and Cessnas and seemed more set up for doing PPLs. ( dodging the parachutes worried me a bit!) They were more expensive but explained the cost was down to them using all CAA set up. Im also told that at the same airfield there is an old guy flying a Slingsby Venture on his own doing tuition but this third club said that they no longer use this aircraft as it doesnt have a type certficate for the engine and so cant be used for training for the initial issue or variation of a licence?

I have been reading up at length various EASA documents and have ended up even more confused!

Can a motorglider on condition be used for PPL flight training?
Can a non type certified motorglider be used for PPL flight training?
Can a BGA instructor teach on a PA28 for trial lessons?
What changes will EASA have on all the above?
If I did hours at a BGA club would it count towards an EASA PPL which Im told can only be done at an Approved Training Organisation.

[Slopey]

Why preoccupy yourself with the minutiae of regulation?

Go and try it, and see if you like it!

[Prop swinger]

Can a motorglider on condition be used for PPL flight training?

For non-commercial, non-AOC flying, yes.

Can a non type certified motorglider be used for PPL flight training?

Not sure what you mean by this. The aircraft is almost certainly an EASA aircraft & subject to the same maintenance requirements as any other privately owned, non-commercial aircraft.

Can a BGA instructor teach on a PA28 for trial lessons?

If he is also a JAA/EASA rated instructor, yes.

What changes will EASA have on all the above?

Very little.

they tell me they have PPL's and fly on a concession to allow them to instruct with a BGA, rather than a CAA instructors rating

It's not a 'concession'; the BGA administer NPPL SLMG instructor ratings with the approval of the CAA. You can get an NPPL SLMG from them which will be convertable to an EASA LAPL(A) for TMGs.

their aircraft are maintained by a CAA organisation rather than the BGA

The BGA is a CAMO & as such is subject to the same regulatory oversight from the CAA as any other maintenance organisation. They are required to ensure that every aircraft that they are responsible for is maintained according to the standards laid down by EASA in Part M.

You seem to have spent a lot of time listening to people slagging off BGA affiliated organisations so here's another point of view: commercial flying schools are run for the benefit of their owners, flying clubs are run for the benefit of their members.

Slopey is right. Go find somewhere that seems right for you & enjoy the experience.

[aircraft]

I am a bit lost with this one, so to throw some questions into the pot.

1: How can a limited company, paying staff who just happen during their working day to leave their "administrative" duties and give a flying lesson (without direct pay) be classed as non commercial operation?

2: How can "privately operated" aircraft have all of the bills paid by the limited company and give instruction thinly guised as a club?

3: How can instruction for the initial issue of a licence be given on an aircraft that is maintained by a network of non licenced inspectors on an "on condition basis" and operated in a "club" enviroment with paid employees- its not allowed for the issue of an initial licence in aircraft regulated by the LAA.

Forgive me for being so blunt, if this is a real loophole in the EASA / CAA legislation then its a fanastic chance for many to get on with flying and making a living rather than suffering the red tape and the cost of intructors getting a CPL / FI rating and the club an RTF (or ATO under EASA) registration, it also also seems to offer the chance of significantly reduced operating costs compared to aircraft maintained by a CAA approved maintenance organisation. It seems akin to LAA owner / operator status

[Whereisgep]

Something about the OP....seems fishy to me. We have nit heard from GEP for a while....?
It reads to me that the OP is talking abut the same place, and I think we are all reading between the line and work out where that is.....
I'm guessing a

[goldeneaglepilot]

Still around, just busy doing what I enjoy most - messing around with aircraft!!

Some very interesting questions raised in the thread, shall be interested to see if anyone posts any real answers.

At face value it looks political...

[cockney steve]

AFAIK, if you own all, or a share in, a "microlight" 3-axis, or a LAA aeroplane, you may be instructed on that aircraft, by a properly qualified instructor.

I see no reason why the same would not apply to a SLMG.

Having said all that, I'm not a pilot!

[Prop swinger]

Originally Posted by aircraft

Forgive me for being so blunt, if this is a real loophole in the EASA / CAA legislation then its a fanastic chance for many to get on with flying and making a living rather than suffering the red tape and the cost of intructors getting a CPL / FI rating and the club an RTF (or ATO under EASA) registration, it also also seems to offer the chance of significantly reduced operating costs compared to aircraft maintained by a CAA approved maintenance organisation. It seems akin to LAA owner / operator status

It's not a loophole, it's the way French GA has always operated, as well as most European gliding. That's why EASA have not demanded that all training takes place in a commercial organisation covered by an AOC; the regulations are written to allow recreational flying training at non-profit recreational clubs.

Motorglider maintenance will either be carried out by qualified engineers or in accordance with Part M, Section A, Subpart H, M.A.803,(a)2(ii).

[znww5]

The truth, the whole truth, or just part of the truth?

I'm afraid the third (CAA) club the OP visited has been somewhat economical with the truth. Being new to aviation you may not have come across it before, but you can inspect the official CAA aircraft register by searching for G-INFO and it will show you the ownership and airworthiness status of any UK registered aircraft. Obviously details do change, so it can occasionally be a week or so out of date.

According to that database, the only Cessna the above-mentioned club currently owns has had a lapsed CoA since June this year and one of their two motorgliders - a Grob 109 - has had its CoA suspended.

I am also reliably informed that the BGA has declined to provide airworthiness support to any aircraft falling under their remit which is owned or operated by that particular club or the club's owner.

It is important to emphasise that the 'old guy flying a Slingsby Venture on his own doing tuition' is in fact a highly regarded commercially qualified instructor and examiner for a variety of aircraft types, whose reputation is above reproach. He has been in business for decades and his company should not be confused with the 'other' club, which only started operating in mid 2011.

[Flying_Anorak]

I'm not sure if this helps or indeed even if I've got this absolutely right, but having come from a background where I too used to soar silently (before now also drilling expensive holes in the sky with a whirly thing), I think there is a pitfall to be wary of here.

I took advantage of the cross credits which allowed me to get from a BGA Glider Pilot Licence (GPL) to an NPPL (SSEA) in a minimum of hours (approx 12) with the intention of then further upgrading this to a JAR / EASA PPL. Provided that the NPPL training you have had was with a JAR (not BGA) rated instructor then I understand that I can count these 12 hours towards the 35 you need to get from a GPL to JAR/EASA PPL. If on the other hand I'd done an NPPL (TMG) with a BGA rated or non JAR rated instructor then none of these would count and if I subsequently wanted to go from NPPL to JAR/EASA PPL the hours spent getting the NPPL cant be counted.

I learnt years ago that 'instructors speak with forked tongue' when trying to catch you out and the same is true of some posters on here it seems, particularly those who may have only recently joined and may have a hidden agenda.

Suffice it to say that I walked away from a certain club / organisation earlier this year who had some of the aircraft mentioned above for reasons I wont go into on here, in favour of a far more professional outfit with a not dissimilar name (at an airfield not far away) and I've not looked back since!

[aircraft]

Been doing a lot of reading on this.

It would seem that you can learn to fly on a LAA certificated aircraft subject to strict conditions:

Learning to fly in a LAA aircraft is quite legal, but the following conditions apply.
1. An owner may receive remunerated (or un-remunerated) flight training in his own LAA aircraft provided he is a ‘sole’ owner and not part of a group ownership. (Direct family members of the owner’s immediate family are also acceptable).
2. The solo part of the PPL syllabus can be carried out in a single seat LAA aircraft as long as the aircraft is similar to that being used for dual instruction, is suitably equipped, and the instructor is satisfied that it is compatible with accepted flight training practices.
3. ‘Simulated’instrument training as required by the PPL syllabus,and training towards the IMC rating is acceptable in a LAA aircraft provided it is suitably equipped.
4. Examination,asrequiredbythePPLsyllabus,maybecarriedoutinaLAA aircraft,butonly if un-remunerated. The aircraft must also be suitably equipped.
5. All abinitio flight training must be conducted from a licensed airfield.Please note that this is due to change in April 2010.
6. All flight training is at the discretion of,and under the control of,the Flight Instructor whois legally responsible for the student pilot when that student is flying. There is a mandatory requirement for certain types of remunerated flight training to be given and received by members of the same flying club, depending largely on the qualifications held by the instructor. Broadly this only applies to instructors who are PPL and restricted BCPL holders, but not to non-restricted BCPLs, CPLs, and ATPLs, who hold an instructor rating.

Now it would appear that many of the BGA registered motor gliders are maintained to a similar standard yet training is allowed by significantly less qualified flying instructors for a national licence, as long as that is in a non commercial enviroment.

Yet many of these non commercial enviroments seem to provide a living for the people involved.

I could quote easy examples - but....

It would seem to be an unfair playing field with many blind eyes.

[Tupperware Pilot]

Still around, just busy doing what I enjoy most - messing around with aircraft!!

But not to busy to reply in this thread???

It is important to emphasise that the 'old guy flying a Slingsby Venture on his own doing tuition' is in fact a highly regarded commercially qualified instructor and examiner for a variety of aircraft types, whose reputation is above reproach. He has been in business for decades and his company should not be confused with the 'other' club, which only started operating in mid 2011.

Well said.....he is a top man.

Now it would appear that many of the BGA registered motor gliders are maintained to a similar standard yet training is allowed by significantly less qualified flying instructors for a national licence, as long as that is in a non commercial enviroment.

Yet many of these non commercial enviroments seem to provide a living for the people involved.

I could quote easy examples - but....

It would seem to be an unfair playing field with many blind eyes.

And you have based the above on what???

( a proper PPL not a NPPL)

The NPPL is a proper PPL...you still have to give the CAA a large amount of money to get it.... I'm guessing you are not really looking to learn to fly and just cause trouble....

[longer ron]

Absolutely TP...as a first post it is extremely odd !!

[Prop swinger]

Originally Posted by aircraft

Now it would appear that many of the BGA registered motor gliders are maintained to a similar standard...

Wrong again. Look at G_INFO & you will see that they are EASA aircraft & are maintained in accordance with Part-M. They are not permit aircraft.

... yet training is allowed by significantly less qualified flying instructors for a national licence...

They are appropriately qualified. The CAA have been happy to issue licences to their students for years, EASA will be converting those licences into LAPL(A)s.

...as long as that is in a non commercial enviroment.

Yes. And EASA have no problem with these instructors being paid to fly, so long as they have a PPL & instructor's rating.

[squawking 7700]

Motorglider instruction for a NPPL (SLMG) can only be carried out by a CAA apponted FI (SLMG) or FI.
The other instructor rating qualified to teach for a NPPL (SLMG) is a suitably qualified CRI doing a SSEA or microlight to SLMG conversion.

Anyone with a MGIR (Motor Glider Instructor Rating) cannot teach for the NPPL (SLMG).
The MGIR is a BGA rating for the purpose of teaching glider pilots or aspiring glider pilots, gliding exercises e.g. circuits or field landings.


7700

[aircraft]

Prop Swinger - If I read your post correctly, you are saying that paying the instructors for training in a BGA enviroment is not a commercial transaction??? The BGA is clear when it states non commercial enviroment.

If thats the case then they have no need to declare the income and pay any tax....

The real question is simple - if someone pays a club to gain a NPPL on a motorglider and it uses BGA instructors who do not hold CAA / JAR FI ratings (just BGA ratings) then that is acceptable and legal - if so why do the CAA not recognise the hours towards the issue of an EASA or JAR licence in such circumstances?

With respect to the work on the aircraft under the BGA CAMO are ALL BGA inspectors licenced by the CAA as aircraft engineers?

[Tupperware Pilot]

BGA instructors who do not hold CAA / JAR FI ratings (just BGA ratings)

so who is doing this?
Name and shame if you have proof?

Almost as naughty as a person doing aerial work on an NPPL.

again name and shame if you have proof..?

[Prop swinger]

...paying the instructors for training in a BGA enviroment is not a commercial transaction??? The BGA is clear when it states non commercial enviroment.

Just because they are non-commercial doesn't mean they are not allowed to employ people. There is far more to instructing than just flying; I have on several occasions been paid to instruct & my feet haven't left the ground. Under EASA, any PPL or SPL holder with an instructor's rating can be paid to instruct, ie per hour of flight instruction, so you might as well get used to it.

...pays a club to gain a NPPL on a motorglider and it uses BGA instructors who do not hold CAA / JAR FI ratings (just BGA ratings)

as squawking 7700 pointed out, an NPPL SLMG instructor's rating is a CAA rating, not a BGA rating.

...why do the CAA not recognise the hours towards the issue of an EASA [licence]

They do.

...or JAR licence

Because JAR licences required JAR instructors.

With respect to the work on the aircraft under the BGA CAMO are ALL BGA inspectors licenced by the CAA as aircraft engineers?

BGA inspectors can only sign off maintenance on gliders & what EASA call self launch sailplanes. The guys responsible for the maintenance of TMGs & tug aircraft are CAA licenced engineers. Don't forget M.A.803 mentioned above.

[shortstripper]

The OP seems a little too clued up for a complete novice IMHO.

I wonder if he/she is just a disgruntled instructor who sees anyone without an "espensive" rating as unworthy, having spent thousand to get theirs?

I wish my Falke was on a permit! It's taking ages and a small fortune to get it transitioned to an EASA CofA! I'm not sure that any motorgliders (other than homebuilds) are on permits rather than CofA's now? I don't think the Slingsby T61's have been granted an excemption as yet? I suppose there may be a few older designs that are, but I don't know of any used for instruction.

I think some people are so up their own @rses when it comes to seeing others having fun at what they consider their expense!

SS

[aircraft]

Shortstripper - was the Falke on a CofA controlled by the BGA prior to transferring it to an EASA CofA?

Do you use the BGA Scheme?