BEagle,
Would you be so kind as to give us a reference to which specific JAR ratings must be held to fly aeros or formation?

To my knowledge there is none. Thus the 'check' pilot is performing no legally required function, only that required by the Club.

Funny you mention the PFA coaches. That system was inspired by the Tiger Club. Do check your history, old boy.

As MLS wrote,"I'm inclined to think that the only real criteria are experience and competence."

Don't think for a moment that the Club is operating outside of the law!

So nobody can post a top tip on, say, how to handle a crosswind landing in a supercub without registering his instructor qualifications with the forum moderator? What a load of bollox.

That would appear to be the case according to BEagle.

Also, you cannot fly with any-one of less experience than yourself for fear that you offered advice on technique thus breakiing the rules.
Quite contrary to the Tiger Club's charter.

"Would you be so kind as to give us a reference to which specific JAR ratings must be held to fly aeros or formation?"

Non required to fly aerobatics or formation; however, any instruction (in whatever field) to a licence holder at SEP Class SPA level must be given only by a CRI or FI. Which is what the PFA now do.

Variable quality advice has been posted by the unqualified about the quirks of various a/c; you may be lucky and receive such guidance from a good quality source, or you may be very unlucky and be given absolute tosh.

Experience, competence and legality are the sole criteria for any 'check pilots'.

I was at an aerodrome the other day and overheard an interesting conversation:

A."Why have you asked to fly with xxxx ?"
B."I need to do my single engine reval."
A."Your what?"
B."My reval. check"
A."You don't need to fly with him; any intructor can do that!"

'A' is a well-known aerobatic pilot. But clearly has no knowledge of the requirements for conducting SEP Class Rating Revalidation Proficiency Checks. What else doesn't he know when it comes to the Law, I wonder...........

Those who do not hold CRI or FI Ratings and who profess to be 'aerobatic instructors' might care to note the following from the Air Navigation Order:

"..the holder shall be 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 a flight for the purpose of aerial work which consists of:

(i) the giving of instruction in flying; or

(ii) the conducting of flying tests for the purposes of this Order;

in either case in an aeroplane owned, 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."

And don't try to pretend that teaching aerobatics isn't 'the giving of instruction in flying' - quite obviously it is!

You'll strangle yourself with all that red tape!

The legal sense of the term 'instruction in flying' is toward the completion of a rating or licence. It is not a general term and doesn't mean the same as it would outside of the legal document.

What you're saying is that a pilot who perhaps wants to learn and investigate accelerated autorotations may NOT ask a more experienced pilot (not holding CRI) to accompany him for the purpose of demonstrating or for safety's sake.
So, to stay legal, he goes off on his own.

Doesn't sound like the law serving safety to me.

Tough - it's still the law.

The ANO does NOT restrict 'instruction in flying' solely to instruction for Ratings or Licences.

Want to instruct? Become a properly regulated instructor. A pretty simple concept, really. And one which hardly amounts to strangualting red tape.

Well, perhaps there are one or two things to prevent them. Maybe they don't want to spend the time or money acquiring what in many cases would be meaningless paper qualifications.

Indeed. :rolleyes: Personally, I think there has to be a reasonable balance between legal requirements and practicality. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that any reasonably successful lawyer in private practice has learned that lesson a long, long time ago.

There are many people in aviation (e.g., bureaucrats, controllers, engineers, "consultants", physicians, instructors) who have no legal training whatsoever, but pose as experts on 'aviation law'. Typically, such people have a slavish adherence to 'black letter law' and are given to dogmatic statements, which should be ignored. A real lawyer understands that 'the law' has a strong human element and incorporates many nuances of interpretation and application.