Help with legality of learning on owned aircraft etc

[YODI]

Hi Guys,

I bought myself a C150m with a friend, we both have our PPL's.

We are possibly looking to let 2 more people in, both are friends and in to gliding but don't have their PPL's.

The aircraft is a 1975 C150M, Conti 0200 with hours left on the engine and prop to work, it's currently on ground risk insurance.

So, my question is, what needs to be done if my other friend wants to join in to allow him to learn in the aircraft and gain his PPL?

Many thanks, Yodi

[Capt Kremmen]

You'll need at least comprehensive insurance, and a certified instructor following an approved syllabus.

[Mach Jump]

...and a certified instructor following an approved syllabus.

And that Insrtuctor will have to operate under the auspices of a Registered Facility(RF), Or an Approved Training Organisation(ATO).


MJ

[Piper.Classique]

But you only need to insure third party, depends on how you decide to operate and how much the aircraft is worth, you might be just as well off saying, you break it, you bought it. You need a good watertight syndicate agreement either way.

[YODI]

Thanks guys,

I should have explained my question better.

It's the confusion of ownership, some people say that he will have to be the owner of the aircraft to be entitled to learn in it, and others have said that even if if it group owned he can learn in it.

Finding an instructor wont be an issue, and they are all part of an ATO

Thanks, Yodi

[Whopity]

The aircraft is a 1975 C150M, Conti 0200 with hours left on the engine and prop to work

Another factor is the age of the engine and how the aircraft is maintained. The ATO/RF will have to be prepared to conduct training on the aircraft assuming it to be suitable.

[YODI]

I mentioned it above mate, the engine and prop and all lifed items have life to work.

[Genghis the Engineer]

It's a CofA aeroplane.

If the engine has gone "on condition", the only person able to learn on it is the sole owner or members of their immediate family.

If it is not yet on condition, anybody can learn, or be tested on it.

Unless the instructor does it for nothing, in which case it's all fine. Historical reasons.

Stuff about insurance, RTO, etc. is all true.


The stuff about "on condition" may change - the current proposals for ANO amendments suggest significant relaxation of the ownership rules for instruction. However, that's 1-2 years away, and the final form not yet known.

G

[YODI]

Thanks Genghis,

The engine is not on condition, it still has life and hours on it, as does the prop and the mags/hoses are being changed so they will be too.

So to clarify, he can learn on it even if we all part own it and the instructor doesn't get paid, but does go through a flight school. What insurance is required?

[dobbin1]

The instructor must operate through an ATO or RF. Your best bet is to contact your local flying school and ask them if they are willing to do ab initio training for group members on your group owned C of A aircraft. Many will, and often have an "own aircraft" training rate already set.

The instructor can (and should) be paid.

[Genghis the Engineer]

3rd party and passenger liability. (I know of a case where pax liability was used after an instructional prang and the student claimed against the instructor; I certainly won't instruct unless that's in place).

Have a look a visicover's website - you can play around with options on their insurance form and see the price differences. (They were also cheapest when I insured the AA5 that I lease to a flying school anyhow, plus very helpful when I contacted them about some complications with it.)

If it's on condition, and through an RTO/ATO, it makes no difference whether the instructor is paid or not - although in my experience, most instructors prefer it

G

[YODI]

Someone above mentioned they shouldn't be paid so I was just going with it, I'm an aircraft mechanic and have lots of instructor friend that will be happy to help.

Thanks for your help guys.

[Whopity]

Unless the instructor does it for nothing, in which case it's all fine. Historical reasons.

That would also assume the ATO, who have to pay for the privilege, would make no charge for using their facilities, training documents etc, not very likely if there is nothing in it for them! Historically, a lone instructor could have done it but not any more.

[YODI]

I have many instructor friends, that instruction is not an issue.

[ifitaintboeing]

If the engine has gone "on condition", the only person able to learn on it is the sole owner or members of their immediate family.

If it is not yet on condition, anybody can learn, or be tested on it.

Unless the instructor does it for nothing, in which case it's all fine. Historical reasons.

This changed with the introduction of EASA and Part M some years ago. For EASA aircraft on a C of A or Permit to Fly, as a sole owner or joint-owner he can receive remunerated training towards issue, renewal, and revalidation of a licence, rating, or certificate on that aircraft.

See AIC W001/2011 paragraph 2, and the flow chart at the end.

The rules are different for non-EASA aircraft which are regulated by the ANO: information about learning to fly in a LAA Permit to Fly aircraft is available in Technical Leaflet 2.09.

ifitaint...

[YODI]

Thanks ifitaintboeing, much appreciated

[markkal]

Hi Yodi,

About the engine issue, I have the same problem, there are 2 different mutually exclusive situations to consider:

Calendarial: Engine is older than 12 years from new or since last overhaul, regardless of hours remaining.

Total Time: 2'200 hours if I am not mistaken + 10% tolerance

For Aerobatic aircraft it's 1'400 Hours

Whichever comes first puts the engine "On condition" BUT for private use only.

For training purposes within an ATO at least for licence training, debatable for ratings, (Aerobatic, night, towing) the above conditions must be met.

Lycoming issues recommendations only (Don't know abot Continental) for calendarial deadline overhaul, but authorities in Europe makes this mandatory for use within ATO.

We live in a world of potential litigation issues around every corner, this might be one of the reasons for this, the other which is more subjective is corrosion to critical parts, camshaft lobes, bearings and cylinder walls originating from sporadic use.

It is very likely that an abused engine used daily within a school with overrevv's cold starts, failure to warm up properly may reach TBO whereas a carefully maintained privately owned engine flown sporadically may have issues well before that.

But there are means to diagnose health of engine, by oil analysis (To be effective must be done regularly and matched against previous findings), compression tests and visual / scope inspection of vital components.

It is very very unlikely that a privately used a/c will ever reach the TT TBO while on private use, it will reach the calendarial deadline first.

[ifitaintboeing]

For training purposes within an ATO at least for licence training, debatable for ratings, (Aerobatic, night, towing) the above conditions must be met.

The "on condition" issue which you describe is not applicable when conducting remunerated training for the sole or group owner on an EASA aircraft. See the AIC above.

ifitaint...

[markkal]

I concur but then how can you conciliate that with the requirements in force within an ATO ?

Can you quote the legal basis to substantiate this, it would give leverage when dealing with ATO's, they seem to interpret EASA rules which are themselves not as clear or concise when compared to FAA's ones.

EASA FCL's is 1'200 pages of bureaucratic regulation, FAA is 90 pages...Go figure !!!

[ecosse]

I have many instructor friends, that instruction is not an issue.

Not being funny but...

Cant you just ask them If its ok? surely they should be the first person too go to.