Of course, this one shows how a quick shot, or two, at the controls can be a life-saver:

Hero passenger lands light aircraft at Humberside airport after pilot friend passes out at the controls - then dies - Home News - UK - The Independent

Above The Clouds

Many thanks for your concise legal input.

Having spent many years defending pilots against the CAA legal department's interpretation of various aspects of the legislation (some even more creative than this) I am extremely grateful for your assistance in statutory interpretation and must remember to use the expression "Utter Bo**ocks" more often in court.

Level Attitude has the point.

Please let us be clear, what many of us do in the air and what the ANO says maybe two very different matters but consider what would happen if, unless you hold an instructor rating, your aircraft crashes whilst a family member is practicing a landing. You think that your insurers and the CAA will give the ANO the same interpretation as you? Good luck on that one.


Oh, and duty of care? Well I am currently defending a pilot being tried for manslaughter in respect of an alleged breach of a duty of care and, again, there has been some very interesting and creative interpretations made by the prosecution.

Yes. But are you a lawyer?

There is nothing, that I can see, in the rules that specifically permits a passenger (as opposed to a PUT) to 'have a go at the controls', but there are sections that can easily be interpreted to mean that it is not allowed.

To reiterate: I think it is great for passengers, flying with a friend, to try out controlling the aircraft - to any extent that the PIC is happy with.

However I do not currently want to see this tested in court because I think the rules, as are, say it is not allowed. Unfortunately I think a court case is now much more likely: An, unknown, member of the public who wants, sees advertised, books, pays for and expects "an air tour of short duration" but is then offered the 'opportunity' to fly the aircraft.

Although the brief CAA notice, ORS4 No 1094, does not directly address the issue of cost sharing for aircraft in shared ownership, it does say at para 2b that all ANO provisions applicable to a private flight must be complied with.

So, if you read ANO Article 269(3), for such aircraft the opportunity to share costs is still limited to among the co-owners.

Latest CAA blog - "Sharing the cost of recreational flying"

Sharing the cost of recreational flying | UK Civil Aviation Authority

This summary doc is linked in the blog

Information and guidance on the circumstances under which the

The worms are already well away from the can and 'W.........' all over the place, including m-lights and night flights.
It all rather begs the question why anyone would bother with an AOC (answer most pleasure flight operations do not bother anymore),as the cost alone precludes any sort of business return.
Flying clubs seized on the 'trial lesson' route and it has given them a new lease of life in some cases however they are now been affected by the 'cost share business'.
Of course its a business; as along the line someone is creaming off a good % seemingly without putting themselves at any risk of prosecution.
The whole business of AOC 'public transport regulations' is supposed to be safety based; with a huge investment in time and effort just to produce an 'ops manual' before you even get around to try and find 'examiners' and pilots that an operation needs. What you ended up with was an unaffordable 'safe' operation where pilots were licenced on type and tested and examined by a CAA ops inspector. You may think this is all over the top for a 20 min flight in a C172 down the beach and back, but those were the rules (and still are). I always remember reminding pilots that they were in a very responsible position in a single, and that they were also responsible to ensure that in the event of a emergency they could LAND the machine in a suitable place without hurting anyone. This meant that the choice of route and height had to be taken into account as it was no excuse to say (there was nowhere to land). As Leg App alludes its when the COURTS get involved that the real test comes, as the blame culture will follow the trail back to the money even if it bankrupts you or your house gets taken, and the CAA themselves are not going to fall on their swords to protect you.

Back in the day we used to have to be checked out as PPLs to work towards AFI status. Then we had to have BCPLs.

Recently PPLs can be checked out to do trial lessons for a club.

But now any newly minted PPL can sign up to Wingly and blag free flying with anyone who wants to go anywhere.

Inevitably there will be incidents as the pressure to deliver for the paying customer pushes inexperienced and under-qualified pilots into marginal conditions.

It may be legal to do a Wingly, but is it sensible.

That is incorrect. To provide an air experience flying lesson a pilot must also be an FI. A PPL/FI who has not passed the CPL exams may only conduct and air experience flying lesson for a prospective LAPL holder.

A-to-A, day VFR 'Introductory flights' may be conducted by non-FI PPL holders, but the associated regulations and CAA policy are quite specific. These may only be a minor part of an ATO's activity.

'Wingly' cost sharing has been banned by some flying clubs and aerodromes for aircraft rented from clubs based there and it seems that some insurers are beginning to take note, from some reports.

As usual, if the greedy few end up causing the rules to be hardened to the detriment of others, they will only have themselves to blame.

Further to Beagle's post, The CAA quite clearly state in their guidance to Introductory flights Chapter 2 para 4.
"An introductory flight should consist of an air tour of short duration. The PIC cannot hand over control of the aircraft to the passengers at any time unless he/she is the holder of a valid instructor’s certificate."

This is also relevant to CRIs in that, they aren't qualified to teach ab into, so are not able to hand over control on an introductory flight.
As a CRI, I did one at the weekend and had to turn down the instructor fee. 😭

Sam, the para is intended to kill off the airtaxi idea.

I say I sm going Rochester to Bodmin, you want to go, we agree to split the costs - say 10% to je 90% to you - 100% legit.

Now if you come to me and say "I want to go to Bodmin, 90% to me and 10%" to you that can be legit but ONLY if I fly to Bodmin on the agreed day even if for some reason you decide not to go. I seems a good way to spot people setting up non-legit airtaxi services.

Seems to that what will control this may not be the aviation authorities but the insurance companies, if they say you are not civered you would be foolish to do it - renters would probably ban some types of rental without renters having their own hull insurance.

The FAA have something similar to this in the bill that just passed congress a couple of weeks back - we are into the 90 dats for the FAA to propose the rules, it will be interesting to see what they put in place.