Third Party Passenger Flying

Come on in for general chat and POLITE banter between LAA members

Moderators: John Dean, Moderator

User avatar
Jim Gale
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
Location: Devon

Third Party Passenger Flying

Post by Jim Gale » Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:36 am

We (Devon) had a committee mtg last night where our NC rep reported on last Saturday's NC mtg. One of the topics reported was the re-introduction of TPPF organised by LAA Struts.

If I heard correctly, the basic rules are:-
Pilots must have 20 hours on type, 3 in last 90 days, 3 landings on type in last 30 days and 200 hours PiC. "On type" does NOT mean nosewheel or tailwheel. It means RV6, if that is what is proposed for the TPPF, so hours on an RV7, for example, do NOT count, apparently.
Pilots must be under 65, current in the sense of biennial checks and - whatever licence is held - must have a category 1 or 2 medical, not just doctor's sign-off on a self-certification. No more than 2 passengers may be carried.

I suspect quite a lot of TPPF is undertaken by NPPLs with doctors sign off, who are over 65. For a start, the average age of LAA members is now 56 and it is the over 65s who are generally a) retired and b) free of the incumbrances of children and mortgages and c) have reached a time of life when thoughts more generally run to "putting something back".

So, although the reintroduction of organised TPPF is a step forward, it seems that the majority of pilots with the experience, time and willingness to do the job are excluded from doing it at LAA organised events.

Getting youngsters and adult future members of the LAA into the air in LAA aircraft is a very important part of the LAA's foundation for future members and as well, at organised events there is a lot of milage gained in promotion and knowledge of what the LAA does for light aviation.

So, should we ask ourselves if this new scheme, with it's very restrictive ageism and medical requirements, is yet another case where the LAA has shot itself in the foot?

Discuss................
016693

Nigel Ramsay
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:13 pm
Location: Middle Earth

Re: Third Party Passenger Flying

Post by Nigel Ramsay » Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:46 pm

Jim, I too was pretty miffed at the 65 year rule having just met that criteria! Considering that insurers currently consider 80 the cut off for solo flying in group aircraft I wonder WHO came up with this little gem? I bet they were a lot younger than our average age member - I also wonder what statistics back up such a decision? Certainly a 65 year old with a group 2 medical is likely to be reasonably fit! :x

User avatar
macconnacher
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:26 am
Location: Northampton

Re: Third Party Passenger Flying

Post by macconnacher » Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:04 pm

As a 66 year old who now does not fly I am not involved. I was however at the NC meeting and this value was originally proposed to be 60 but 65 was the value we got after effort was made to up it to reflect our demographics. However 65 is the current limit for charity flights and for carrying scouts I seem to remember and that value was agreed.
Stuart Macconnacher
002353

Graham Clark
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:28 am

Re: Third Party Passenger Flying

Post by Graham Clark » Sun Dec 02, 2012 12:24 pm

The LAA and other organisations complain that EASA has implemented unnecessary restrictions on many aspects of our hobby, yet our own Association seems to be emulating the same route.
The LAA achieved the removal of restrictions on flying over settlements in LAA Permit aircraft, using the argument that there is no evidence that LAA Permit aircraft were any more dangerous than CAA C of A aircraft.
So, I must ask the LAA Board (or whoever has decided upon these restrictions) where is the evidence justifying these limitations?
In my experience, those LAA groups/struts/individuals who organise events at which passengers are to be flown, go to great efforts to ensure that everything is just right (weather, aircraft servicability, routing etc.). Has there been a single accident/incident/injusry/death associated with such an event?
Our insurers have experts at risk assessment. That is their profession. Why does our own Association claim more expertise?

John Brady
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:39 pm

Re: Third Party Passenger Flying

Post by John Brady » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:35 pm

Hello again Graham,

nothing to do with permit aeroplanes - permits and CofA are treated just the same for TPPF. More a people thing....

I did a lot of work for an airline preparing for the Age Discrimination Act and we spent an awful lot of time worrying about allowing pilots over 60 to fly passenger aircraft because we all lose our edge sometime and we could not measure that loss objectively. We ended up allowing pilots to continue but where a pilot was 60 or over the other pilot having to be younger than 60. And they have to retire at 65.

I flew a lot with RAF AEFs but the maximum age came down making a lot of people retire - mostly the people who had the time to do most of the work. We all felt disenfranchised. So I have been around in this sort of activity for a while.

I wonder if we are looking at this from the right angle. TPPF is is meant to be for the (mostly) young people to experience the joy of flying and be enthused just as we were and hopefully go on to become the aviators of the future. But we are just complaining about US not being able to do it. If we really support the vision of TPPF perhaps we should be focussing on how we get younger people (or at least people who are not old) involved in providing the flights under the new rules. Youngsters will probably relate to younger pilots better. If we have an aeroplane can we find someone younger to use it for TPPF? Perhaps us older farts can put our time and experience into organising such events and providing the ground support and ground training.

We can still go flying whenever we want - TTPF is all about THEM and not about US so perhaps we should look at how THEY can continue to benefit from the opportunity to fly.

John
031926

Graham Clark
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:28 am

Re: Third Party Passenger Flying

Post by Graham Clark » Mon Dec 03, 2012 8:22 am

Hi John,
I agree that this is not an issue of Permits vs. C of A safety. But how can I enable younger pilots with no time, no aircraft,and no spare money in their pockets to offer flights to youngsters? Am I supposed to lend them my aircraft and pay for the fuel? I think not.
Effectively, these parameters will cut off any realistic chance of offering TPPF within the LAA. Very sad, and in my opinion quite unnecessary. The criteria appllied are totally disproportionate. I know of no TPPF accidents or injuries, and insurers keep on taking our money until aged 80. They are in a much better position to assess the risks.

User avatar
Jim Gale
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
Location: Devon

Re: Third Party Passenger Flying

Post by Jim Gale » Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:36 am

Sorry that I haven't responded before but was at the Flying Show on the LAA/YES stand from Friday.
I did hear at the show that changes might be considered by the powers to be. So if you all like to put forward sound arguments as to why the proposed rules should be more encompassing, then please do so.
For guidance here's a few notes from the Scout Assn on the matter. A far more pragmatic view......

Scout Association Guidance using an external provider.
a. The pilot must comply with the Air Navigation Order and Joint Aviation Requirements – Operations for licensing, medical and rating.
b. The aircraft must comply with the Air Navigation Order and Joint Aviation Requirements – Operations for registration and maintenance.
c. The aircraft operator is required to arrange for their Aviation Liability Insurance to be endorsed showing ‘The Scout Association’ as an additional assured. The policy, which must include liability to passengers, must be to a minimum limit of 1 million pounds (5 million pounds in respect of helicopters).
Suggested Endorsement: “It is hereby noted that this policy includes the interest of The Scout Association as an additional insured in respect of flights involving members of the Scout Movement.”
d. All Groups, Districts or Counties undertaking Air Activities including hovercrafting are required to notify the Scout Information Centre and County Air Activities Adviser or ACC (Activities) beforehand.
e. The number of Members of the Movement permitted to fly together in a light aircraft is limited to a maximum of four.
f. Powered Flying where no payment is involved. The requirement for pilot experience level is:
• at least 250 hours total of which 150 are as pilot in charge of an aircraft including;
• at least 20 hours as pilot in charge of the type of aircraft being used and;
• Ten hours or 15 landings in the past three months and three landings in the past month on the type of aircraft, which the Scout is to fly in.
Because of the Scout Assn's policy on ageism there appears to be no age restriction, nor medical restriction.

I leave it to you guys and gals to argue the case far more eloquently than I ever can.
Regards,
Jim.
016693

Graham Clark
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:28 am

Re: Third Party Passenger Flying

Post by Graham Clark » Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:24 pm

Graham Clark's comment in italics on Scout Association Rules.

Scout Association Guidance using an external provider.
a. The pilot must comply with the Air Navigation Order and Joint Aviation Requirements – Operations for licensing, medical and rating.
The Scout Association is masquerading as a rule maker. It is wrong to assume this mantle. Self-evidently, a matter for the CAA.

b. The aircraft must comply with the Air Navigation Order and Joint Aviation Requirements – Operations for registration and maintenance.
The Scout Association is masquerading as a rule maker. It is wrong to assume this mantle. A matter for the CAA.

c. The aircraft operator is required to arrange for their Aviation Liability Insurance to be endorsed showing ‘The Scout Association’ as an additional assured. The policy, which must include liability to passengers, must be to a minimum limit of 1 million pounds (5 million pounds in respect of helicopters).
Suggested Endorsement: “It is hereby noted that this policy includes the interest of The Scout Association as an additional insured in respect of flights involving members of the Scout Movement.”
I would welcome a donation from the Scout Association towards my annual insurance premium.

d. All Groups, Districts or Counties undertaking Air Activities including hovercrafting are required to notify the Scout Information Centre and County Air Activities Adviser or ACC (Activities) beforehand.
This is a matter for branches of the Scout Association, not the LAA.e.

The number of Members of the Movement permitted to fly together in a light aircraft is limited to a maximum of four.
That would exclude a pilot who is an adult member of the Scout Association. A limit of four persons? Very few light aircraft can carry five. A 'window dressing' rule.

f. Powered Flying where no payment is involved. The requirement for pilot experience level is:
• at least 250 hours total of which 150 are as pilot in charge of an aircraft including;
• at least 20 hours as pilot in charge of the type of aircraft being used and;
• Ten hours or 15 landings in the past three months and three landings in the past month on the type of aircraft, which the Scout is to fly in.
Because of the Scout Assn's policy on ageism there appears to be no age restriction, nor medical restriction.
What/where is the evidence supporting the need for these limitations? Limitations based on VFR weather criteria would make much more sense, but on this the Scout Association is silent. This leads me to the conclusion that these 'rules' were drafted by someone with limited understanding or first-hand experience of TPPF events.

There needs to be a balance struck between the desire of the Scout Association to enjoy TPPF, and the sacrifices made by pilot providers in terms of their time, valuable assets and money. Every healthy private or business arrangement needs to be a two-way street. I have the impression that these Scout Association rules are one-sided; maybe even exploitative of goodwill shown by aviators.

josher
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:53 pm
Location: salisbury

Re: Third Party Passenger Flying

Post by josher » Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:46 pm

1] The original TPFF proposal developed by the NC w/group was

‘'The pilot shall be an LAA Member approved by the Event Safety Officer, should be aged under 80, shall have a valid ATPL, CPL, PPL or NPPL and associated class rating for the actual aircraft to be flown, and a current medical certificate or declaration appropriate to the type of licence held.
[explanatory table omitted]

The pilot shall attest to having log-book evidence of at least 150hrs PIC, 20hrs on type with 3 of those hours in the last 90 days and with 3 landings on type in the last 30 days (the word ‘type’ in this context shall refer to the specific aircraft make, model and configuration to be flown at the Event e.g. Vans, RV6/7, tri-gear.’'

The license, medical and currency requirements were seen to be a sensible demonstration of competence and all pilots were subject to the approval of the event safety officer. This was acceptable to LAA insurers.

This disappeared into the ‘board’ and appeared 5 months later as we know it!

2] The scout requirements were reputedly drawn up by a commercial pilot with no particular experience of the event being organised and with no known safety rationale. Hardly relevant to the LAA case

3] The 65 age limitation is driven by the charity flying regulation which is in turn driven by the commercial element of charity flying – money changes hands - and is subject to the current age restriction of P1 on commercial flights. Again not relevant to the LAA case since all flying is done for free. I am told there is no proven safety case for the limitation and it may be increased again to 70!

It is a great shame but perhaps no surprise that the LAA management did not have the courage of their w/group [which included several board members] and insurers convictions and stay with original proposal. As it stands there is likely to be a significant restriction on availability of pilots meeting the requirements – it has certainly impacted the Moth Club and their charity flying. Any rollback of the requirements to include more potential pilots in the TPPF pool must be a good thing. I still can't see the problem with the original proposal

Malcolm Rogan
Malcolm Rogan
029841

Graham Clark
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:28 am

Re: Third Party Passenger Flying

Post by Graham Clark » Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:16 pm

If the LAA needs to set a bar higher than that of the bare PPL, then I suggest that an objective level would be that specified by the BMAA for those wishing to embark on training to become an Assistant Flying Instructor:

"The minimum flying experience needed before starting an AFI Course is 100 hour as PIC, minimum 40 hours of which must be on Microlight aircraft, 5 hours of which must be on the aircraft type to be used for the course.

In addition you must have had an unrestricted PPL or NPPL Microlight Licence for a minimum period of 8 months."

That seems to me to be quite realistic, and provides a good reference point should questions arise. It seems to me, that if this level of expeience is good enough for AFI training, it should also be sufficient for TPPF within a regulated and organised group.

josher
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:53 pm
Location: salisbury

Re: Third Party Passenger Flying

Post by josher » Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:26 pm

and after the board [or was it just one worried ill informed individual] imposed a nobody over 65 and no NPPls requiremt on our third party flying because that was the charity flying rule which provided a good baseline in any litigation it transpires that CAA waived those requiremnts in an AIC dated last July

[ http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/in ... id=56.html - second from bottom for 2012]

so anyone holding a valid license with no age limit can now conduct charity flights - but not in a permit aircraft! [you never could]

Makes you wonder doesn't it??
Malcolm Rogan
029841

Brian Hope
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
Location: Sheerness Kent

Re: Third Party Passenger Flying

Post by Brian Hope » Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:11 pm

Hi Josher, I can't see where the changes to the AIC are, it still says, for aeroplanes, the pilot must be under 65 and a Class 2 is required for an NPPL. Am I missing something?
014011

josher
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:53 pm
Location: salisbury

Re: Third Party Passenger Flying

Post by josher » Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:02 pm

CLANG!! you are right Brian 65 is still there - I didn't see the following pages when I looked at it and I suppose my hopes overtook my expectations!
Malcolm Rogan
029841

User avatar
Captain Pulsar
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:20 pm

Re: Third Party Passenger Flying

Post by Captain Pulsar » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:54 pm

Am I correct in the assumption that the above edicts apply only where an official LAA organised event is taking place.

What is the definition of a "TPPF"? Is this any person who is not a current license holder? It would appear these additional constraints overrule the privileges afforded to a license holder, and as such are there purely to avoid any LAA liability in the event of an 'incident'. Is this a correct assumption?
The last time I looked into giving something back, I was informed I must undergo a CRB check, just in case I was a pervert and touched someone in an inappropriate place helping them into the cockpit!

What a dismal environment to encourage any would be flyers, it's a wonder anyone bothers at all.
Rob Freestone
Robert Freestone
026823

mikeblyth
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:24 am
Location: Bedford UK

Re: Third Party Passenger Flying

Post by mikeblyth » Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:11 am

"I was informed I must undergo a CRB check, just in case I was a pervert and touched someone in an inappropriate place helping them into the cockpit!"

I had this problem taking a 28 year old female flying. Had to strap her in. Should have got her mum
to do it. 8)
Mike Blyth
005633

Post Reply