Training in Permit Aircraft - clarification or change?

Mark Turner · Post by **Mark Turner** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:08 pm

Hi

Some chap has just posted a question on another forum regarding remuneration for training in Permit aircraft with the following link http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/curre ... 071_en.pdf

At the end in Annex A there is a table that summarises the position.

Can someone at the LAA please check that the permit column is correct as it is saying that doing the test or revalidation is not allowed in an aircraft with a Permit to fly.

cheers

Mark Turner

Mike Cross · Post by **Mike Cross** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:46 am

The author of the Annex suggests that a payment to en Examiner to conduct a flying test does not fall within the Exemption in Art 157(2)

Public transport and aerial work - general rules
157 (1) Subject to the provisions of this article and articles 158 to 163, aerial work means any
purpose (other than public transport) for which an aircraft is flown if valuable
consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight.
(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.

I suspect that this is because of ORS5 No 197 which sets down the fees payable for flight tests. It follows that these fees are not "remuneration for the services of the pilot" and hence the flight falls outside the exemption.

Mark Turner · Post by **Mark Turner** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:36 am

Mike

That is my understanding also. However I feel that the writer is being very black & white about it leading to the impression that it is not possible at all.

I know first hand it is quite possible and legal if you follow the rules.

Mark Turner

Cookie · Post by **Cookie** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:47 pm

Dear LAA members,

The AIC follows a meeting I arranged with the CAA to clarify a number of issues with training on LAA aircraft.

This AIC deals with remunerated training in LAA aircraft. The LAA also hold an exemption which permits remunerated training beyond the scope of this AIC for the Pilot Coaching Scheme. Additionally, non-remunerated training and testing is also permissible beyond the scope of this AIC.

Should you have any specific questions, please feel free to contact me via the PCS E-mail address [email protected]

I apologise for not expanding the explanation further at this time. An article will be produced for LA in the near future.

Regards,

Jon

Mike Cross · Post by **Mike Cross** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:59 pm

Hi Jon

I said elsewhere

My reading is that Flight tests in a Permit aircraft are illegal unless the conditions in art 11(4) are met

(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.

It may well be that the LAA has such a permission.

Did I guess correctly?

Will Greenwood · Post by **Will Greenwood** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:54 pm

Hi, Jon is unable to get to a computer at the momment and will reply with full details shortly on the changes to the AIC.

Will LAA/PCS

Cookie · Post by **Cookie** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:50 am

Dear Mike,

Article 11 (4) was inserted into the ANO in order to allow microlights and gyroplane training to be legal without the need for an exemption. The required permissions are included on the aircraft's Permit to Fly.

Flight tests are legal in SEP/SSEA Permit to Fly aircraft if un-remunerated. The AIC deals specifically with remunerated training in Permit to Fly aircraft, although the meeting with the CAA covered all aspects of training in LAA aircraft, including microlights, gyroplanes and SEP/SSEA.

The issue of being members of the same club is dealt with by either both being members of the same flying club or both being members of the LAA.

The intent was to provide members with an official document, with which instructors are familiar, to guide aircraft owners and flying clubs on what is permissible and what is not.

Regards,

Jon

Trevor Harvey · Post by **Trevor Harvey** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:20 pm

Jon
Talking of legalities. slight thread drift.
During the NPPL revalidation thing at the end of June I asked an instructor at my local airfield if he could do my one hour revalidation instruction in my a/c.
He is not tailwheel qualified but he/they either discovered or decided that provided the one hour instruction did not include anything that was tailwheel specific ie; landing, ground handling etc, then it would be legal.
The 1 hour went ahead & he signed my logbook.
Later I got a bit concerned that this may not be legal after all, so did another 1 hour with an instructor who is most definately tailwheel qualified, who signed my logbook again, just in time.
Q. was the second hour a waste of time or not?
Someone mentioned the instructor is PIC & in this case could not be??

Cookie · Post by **Cookie** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:36 pm

Trevor,

The instructor acts as PIC for the 'one hour with an instructor', and you are PUT. As such the instructor must be fully qualified and current (licence, class rating and instructor qualification, together with differences completed) to fly the aircraft.

Clearly in the first case they were not, and the pilot in command (instructor) was acting beyond their licence privileges.

Regards,

Jon

Trevor Harvey · Post by **Trevor Harvey** » Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:29 pm

Thank you Jon
I shall pass that to the instructors concerned.

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 12:05 am

New AIC wrote:
5 Aircraft operating under a Permit to Fly
5.1 According to Article 11(4) of the ANO, aircraft operating under a Permit to Fly can not be used for aerial work consisting of flying
training or flying tests unless permitted by the CAA. Generally, the CAA will only issue such permission to factory built ‘Type Approved’
microlights and in certain circumstances such as when an aircraft is unique and/or there is no equivalent aircraft with a Certificate of
Airworthiness available.
5.2 The General Exemptions for flying training and flying tests are not applicable to aircraft operating under a Permit to Fly and therefore
such aircraft cannot be used for a flying test or, if the aircraft is jointly owned, remunerated flying training unless permitted by the CAA.
However, by virtue of the alleviation given in Article 157(2) a sole owner4 of an aircraft with a Permit to Fly can pay for flying training in his
aircraft.

OK the penny has clearly not dropped from the tepid response here. This has VERY SERIOUS implications. If the AIC is correct this means any revalidation or rating tested in a non miroclight permit aircraft by an examiner for a fee is null and void. That means there may be hundreds of permit aircraft syndicate/owners flying around with out of date ratings or invalid qualifications. My one hour biannuals in my A/C are always with a paid instructor at my club and I'm a joint owner. So that would mean for the last two years I have been flying without a SEP rating.

Clearly that would a crazy situation so the IAC must be flawed. If not CAA should get the message out to anyone that has paid for a biuannual flight or revalidation or test in their syndicate aircraft that they are currently flying illegally.

The reason for all this in the ANO was to stop illegal flying training by bogus operators using private cat/permit aircraft. The above was never the intention of the ANO. The AIC is either wrong or CAA had better issue us all exemptions fast then change the ANO!!

FUBAR

Steve

Dave Hall · Post by **Dave Hall** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 1:22 am

The structure of the training and assessment side of the PCS has been agreed with the CAA. I guess any payment made under that scheme must be considered as expenses, though the PCS advertises, or has advertised, rates for particular courses.

Is it any more permissible to pay for training in a group-owned private cat CofA aircraft?

Maybe you are safe as in your case 'the aircraft is unique and/or there is no equivalent aircraft with a Certificate of Airworthiness available.'

Still, it's not an area to just assume it's all OK.

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 7:16 am

Dave Hall wrote:The structure of the training and assessment side of the PCS has been agreed with the CAA. I guess any payment made under that scheme must be considered as expenses, though the PCS advertises, or has advertised, rates for particular courses.

Is it any more permissible to pay for training in a group-owned private cat CofA aircraft?

Maybe you are safe as in your case 'the aircraft is unique and/or there is no equivalent aircraft with a Certificate of Airworthiness available.'

Still, it's not an area to just assume it's all OK.

Hi Dave,

Your first point is well made. As the stated restrictions are on the aircraft not the instructor/coach then the AIC puts PCS flights is in the same illegal situation if they took money for training a syndicate member or carried out any tests or revalidations for anyone in PTF.

Re CofA there is a stated exemption in section 2 of the AIC. That same exemption needs to extended to permit aircraft and section 5 completely removed. However that may not then reflect CAA interpretation of the ANO so the ANO may need rewriting.

Re unique types there are plenty of SEP's about so that's no get out.

Steve

Les James · Post by **Les James** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:22 pm

Jon Cooke

Regarding your statement " ' one hour flight with an instructor' you are PUT " , My instructor says to enter P1/S in my logbook, who is correct ?

Regards
Les

merlin · Post by **merlin** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:38 pm

Cookie wrote:Trevor,

The instructor acts as PIC for the 'one hour with an instructor', and you are PUT. As such the instructor must be fully qualified and current (licence, class rating and instructor qualification, together with differences completed) to fly the aircraft.

Clearly in the first case they were not, and the pilot in command (instructor) was acting beyond their licence privileges.

Regards,

Jon

I think I am on fairly solid ground in believing that a flight of say 2hrs could be shared by 2 pilots say 1 hour each. If this is so then as long as the flight lasted more than an hour then could the instructor be P1 for the central hour and so avoid tailwheel specifics.