Instruction in a permit aircraft?

[Peter Gorman]

While I understand a student pilot may not receive paid instruction in a permit aircraft, what would the position be if
(i) the student him/herself owned the permit aircraft, and/or
(ii) no consideration is paid for the instruction?

A technical question.
Peter

[Trevor Lyons]

If you are the sole owner of a Permit aircraft, you may lawfully receive instruction in it; and the instructor is lawfully permitted to receive payment. I know this, and have documents to prove it. (I received most of my instruction in my own ARV Super2 at Derby and Tatenhill.) However, if the aircraft is jointly owned, there may be difficulties; although you might get round that by becoming the sole owner, acting as trustee on behalf of the other members in the group.

[Mark A]

Hi Peter,

The CAA missive on the subject is in AICs at http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/curre ... 018_en.pdf

I believe that unremunerated, ab-initio training in a jointly owned aircraft is OK if you can find the instructor, registered training facility and licensed aerodrome to do the job.
There are 8 possible combinations of remunerated/unremunerated, ab-initio/continuation training and joint/sole ownership.

I did once see the legalities worked out for all the possible combinations, but can't remember where.
Good luck trying to work out the AIC.

Mark

[Peter Gorman]

Thanks. The AIC seems to say that a jointly-owned permit aircraft may not be used for instruction. Maybe a solely-owned one is ok is unclear to me, wending one's way through the tortured syntax to try to figure out what they're trying to say!

[Cookie]

Dear all,

This topic is one which I have been pursuing with the CAA for the last 12 months.

The AIC linked above refers to aircraft on a EASA C of A and not LAA Permit to Fly aircraft. This means that currently ab-initio flight training towards a JAR-PPL is not permitted on Permit to Fly aircraft. Indeed we have been lobbying for changes to the ANO in order to effect this. I wrote in January to the Head of FCL, and have subsequently had several conversations with him about this, but progress has been slow.

I have previously requested a similar AIC to that which EASA aircraft have, and was refused by the CAA. It is something which we hope to have rectified soon, and will ensure that EASA OPS contains the correct wording to allow this.

That said, I do know of several people recently who have received training for the PPL on LAA Permit to Fly aircraft and have subsequently been issued their licence with no problem.

Clearly, as the situation stands, we cannot recommend that you conduct ab-initio JAR-PPL training on your LAA aircraft, since you risk having your application refused.

Kind regards,

Jon Cooke
PCS Chairman

[merlin]

Curious, do the CAA give reasoned arguments and explanations for slowness of progress?

[Mike Cross]

The clue in that AIC is

1 This exemption applies to any aircraft registered in the United Kingdom with a maximum take-off weight authorised not exceeding
2730 kg which has a certificate of airworthiness and which is operated and maintained in accordance with the airworthiness provisions
of Part 3 of the Air Navigation Order 2005 ("the Order") applicable to private flight ("a specified aircraft").

i.e. It covers instruction in C of A aircraft which are not maintianed to PT standards (e.g. one that has an engine more than 12 years old and therefore can't be used for PT).

For the sake of completeness there is another AIC that permits remunerated training in a hired ex-mil a/c on a permit
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/curre ... 079_en.pdf

Cookie

Have you discussed para 1 of that AIC?

1 The Air Navigation Order limits the payments that can be made in connection with flights by aircraft with a Permit to Fly issued in
accordance with Article 11 of the Order. Payment for the services of a pilot is allowed under Article 157(2), therefore a person who is
the sole owner of an aircraft can be trained to fly it. However, a person cannot normally pay to hire a Permit to Fly aircraft. This has the
effect of preventing pilots who wish to fly ex-military Permit to Fly aircraft from purchasing appropriate training on a hired aircraft
(remunerated flying training) prior to purchasing such an aircraft.

[Cookie]

Mike,

That AIC refers to C of A Permit to Fly, and not LAA Permit to Fly. It also does not permit ab-initio training. The PCS hold an exemption to allow the same on LAA Permit to Fly aircraft. Indeed the AIC is more restrictive than our exemption in that it requires a licensed aerodrome.

The problem with LAA Permit to Fly training arises from the fact that there are two issues invovled with ab-initio training. One is that the A & A department at the CAA must authorise use of the aircraft for training from a maintenance point of view, and the other that FCL must authorise the aircraft to be suitable for training. JARs specifically require the aircraft to be authorised for training.

I have spoken directly with the Head of FCL recently about this, and it would appear that a lack of understanding of the maintenance regime under LAA Permit to Fly is a part of the problem. I am pursuing this along with other projects.

I will keep you updated with any progress.

Regards,

Cookie

[Mike Cross]

You've got me puzzled now Jon

Art 8 says, among other things:-

8 (1) Subject to paragraph (2), an aircraft shall not fly unless there is in force in respect thereof a certificate of airworthiness duly issued or rendered valid under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered or the State of the operator, and any conditions subject to which the certificate was issued or rendered valid are complied with.
(2) The foregoing prohibition shall not apply to flights, beginning and ending in the United Kingdom without passing over any other country, of:........................

(e) an aircraft flying in accordance with a national permit to fly, an EASA permit to fly or a certificate of validation issued by the CAA under article 13;

There's nothing in Art 8 that refers to any sort of Permit other than a "national permit to fly". If an LAA Permit was something different it would have to be mentioned separately, which it isn't.

Art 11 similarly refers to a national permit to fly so I don't see how the AIC can be said to refer only to what we call a CAA Permit. There's no differentiator as far as I can see within the ANO.

AFIK the Permit is a National Permit, whether issued by CAA or LAA. The differentiator is simply that the LAA has authorisation from the CAA to issue permits for certain classes of aircraft so those that fall outside of its authorisation (e.g. helicopters and heavy metal) have to be issued by the CAA.

[Cookie]

Article 11 specifically prohibits paid flying instruction in that it is aerial work,

11 (2)
Subject to paragraph (4), an aircraft flying in accordance with a national permit to fly shall not fly for the purpose of public transport or aerial work other than aerial work which consists of flights for the purpose of flying displays, associated practice, test and positioning flights or the exhibition or demonstration of the aircraft.

....unless paragraph 4 is complied with. This was originally included in the ANO to allow paid instruction in microlights. I asked if the LAA could be counted as a flying club for this purpose to allow LAA members to receive paid instruction in their own aircraft and was refused.

11 (4)
With the permission of the CAA, an aircraft flying in accordance with a national permit to fly may fly for the purpose of aerial work which consists of the giving of instruction in flying or the conduct of flying tests, subject to the aircraft being 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.

Additionally, JARs under Appendix 1a to JAR FCL 1.055 requires Training Aeroplanes to be approved as follows:

26 Only aeroplanes approved by the Authority for training purposes shall be used.

I provided a list of suitable LAA aircraft to the CAA, and requested their approval, which was denied.

The AIC you have referred to specifically mentions "FULLY REMUNERATED FLYING TRAINING IN EX-MILITARY PERMIT TO FLY AIRCRAFT". This is in general those aircraft operating on a CAA issued Permit to Fly, not LAA issued Permit to Fly.

Whilst I agree that paid-for ab-initio training in LAA aircraft should be allowed, the situation as it stands is that if you choose to receive flight training towards a licence in a LAA aircraft, you risk having your application refused on the above grounds.

Regards,

Jon Cooke
PCS Chairman

[Mike Cross]

Hi Jon

Thanks for that. Yes I was aware of those other provisions.

Art 157

(2) If the only such valuable consideration consists of remuneration for the services of the pilot the flight shall be deemed to be a private flight for the purposes of Part 3 of this Order.

Part 3 is the part dealing with airworthiness and equipment of aircraft.

which takes us back to AIC White 141

1 The Air Navigation Order limits the payments that can be made in connection with flights by aircraft with a Permit to Fly issued in
accordance with Article 11 of the Order. Payment for the services of a pilot is allowed under Article 157(2), therefore a person who is
the sole owner of an aircraft can be trained to fly it.

This all seems to me to be very simple and FCL are failing to grasp it.
Is it aerial work? No. It is a Private flight by virtue of the exemption in Art 157 (2). Ergo the maintenance standards applicable to a Private Flight set out in Part 3 apply.

Which simply leaves us with the question of JAR. The one you quote relates to the requirements for registration of an FTO. You don't need to be an FTO to provide PPL training.
JAR–FCL 1.125 requires a PPL applicant to do the course at either an FTO or a Registered Facility. I don't see any requirement within JAR-FCL 1 for aircraft used by a RF to be approved by the Authority.

Of course none of this helps someone who is not a sole owner but my reading remains that if you are a sole owner you can do your PPL course at a RF in your own Permit aircraft. If FCL think otherwise they need to give us some reasons that stand up to scrutiny. It is a confusing subject and it wouldn't surprise me if either I or FCL had the wrong end of the stick.

I'll PM you my contact details. If you would like any support on this please contact me. I'm happy to have a go at getting AOPA UK to support this if it will help.

[jamie_duff]

I have a special interest in this subject too as it happens.

I too thought (though haven't read too carefully) that a sole owner could take instruction in a Permit aircraft.

Would unremunerated ab-initio instruction be safe for me to take in my own aeroplane towards my license? (I have a friend with an instructor's rating and we could come to 'another' arrangement between ourselves)

Many thanks,

Jamie

[Trevor Lyons]

Please find below the text of a PFA document, "Info.Let/9":

"CAN I LEARN TO FLY IN A PFA AIRCRAFT?

The answer is YES, but the following conditions apply:

1. An owner may receive remunerated (or un-remunerated) flying instruction in his own PFA aircraft provided he is a 'sole' owner and not part of a group ownership. (Members of the owner's immediate family would also be acceptable) .

2. The solo part of the PPL syllabus can be carried out in a single seat PFA 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 flying instructional practices.

3. 'Simulated' instrument training, as required by the PPL syllabus, is acceptable in a PFA aircraft provided it is suitably equipped.

4. Examination, as required by the PPL syllabus, may be carried out in a PFA aircraft, but only if un-remunerated.

5. All flying training must be conducted from a licensed airfield.

6. All flying instruction has to be at the discretion of, and under the control of the flying instructor who is legally responsible for the student pilot when that student is flying. There is a mandatory requirement for certain types of remunerated flying instruction to be given and received by members of the same flying club, depending largely on the qualifications held by the instructor. Broadly this applies to PPL and restricted BCPL instructors but not to holders of non-restricted BCPLs, CPLs and ATPLs who also hold a (qualified) flying instructor rating and have a Type Rating for the aircraft being used for the instruction. Assistant flying instructors can only work under the supervision of the holder of a flying instructor rating.

Further information is available from the CM' s Flight Crew Licensing Department at Gatwick, Telephone 01293 573700.
Additionally, PFA members may contact PFA Engineering for advice."

[WBerry]

Complicted stuff.

What about a tail-dragger conversion (not ab-initio)? I currently have an NPPL licence and would like to get a taildragger.

Can that be done on a part-owned permit a/c. Or does the conversion still need to be on a sole-owned, non-renumerated basis.

In fact can a LAA coach help out with conversion training?

[John Brady]

I have done tailwheel conversions on my permit Jodel as it is not "instruction for the purpose of gaining a licence or rating". I asked and was told that was ok. What I could not do was fly for hire or reward as that would be a public transport flight for airworthiness purposes. I asked the CAA who said I could receive costs for fuel etc.

John