CAA Exemptions for paid instruction on Group-owned Aircraft

[Dave Hall]

It seemed with all the recently-published CAA exemptions that pilots of goup-owned aircraft can pay for training (other than ab-initio) in their group aeroplane. Clearly that is a desirable situation as there's little point paying for time on a PA28 when you need to practise on a PA22.

However, there seem to be some significant omissions which while perhaps not attracting the wrath of the CAA, might give a loophole for the insurance company to turn down a claim if the worst happened.

ORS4 - 802 allows paid flying training - eg training flights in connection with revalidation and differences training, while
ORS4 - 803 allows paid instruction and testing to renew an expired rating or licence.

Both relate to a permit aircraft if done through a club of which both the group member and instructor are members and the aircraft is operated by or under arrangements with the flying club.

That covers permit aircraft (pilot-owner maintained or not), but is the LAA the 'flying club' that the aircraft is 'operated under arrangements with'?


However, for CofA aircraft, ORS4 - 804 allows paid flying training and testing but specifically requires that for non-EASA aircraft no pilot maintenance should have been carried out since the last scheduled maintenance inspection carried out by an LAE or suitably approved organisation who shall have issued a release to service.

So it's permissible to pay for training in a pilot-maintained group-owned CofA non-EASA aircraft whether or not the instructor is a member of the 'club', as long as no pilot-owner does the oil-changes.

I can't see the logic in that distinction - can anyone please explain why this should be?

Also could someone please confirm that for permit aircraft, the club can be the LAA.

Thanks.

[John Brady]

Dave,

an almost identical question is on my own list and I have asked Jon Cooke if he can help.

John

[Dave Hall]

Thanks John.

[John Brady]

Dave,

Jon tells me that if examiner and examinee are both LAA members they should fall within the allowable. We are going to discuss it in detail at the Rally and I will arrange for the outcome to be publicised to members.

John

[Dave Hall]

That would probably work for me for one of the instructors - I think I'm the only LAA member in this CofA group though.

I wondered if it was something that could encourage the setting up of some sort of owner maintenance certificate - I think the French have plans for something like that, or did I just dream it? Maybe that's just unnecessary bureaucracy though.

[Alan Hall]

Apologies if I've missed it elsewehere, but was there any follow-up on this? Is a skills test included, if the examiner is an LAA member?

Also, all of the ORS documents say the aircraft must be "jointly owned", so would a sole owner be covered? A literal interpretation would suggest not, to my mind, but this makes no sense and so I assume the intent of the rule is simply to ensure that the pilot has some ownership involvement with the aircraft, and is not using somebody else's under a dodgy arrangement.

Alan

[Dave Hall]

I think the sole owner has those privileges under a different ORS number. they subsequently broadened it to include group ownership, but still haven't relaxed the owner-maintenance restriction for paid instruction or testing. At least, I haven't found any change on that.

Some suggest that you cover expenses but don't pay the instructor for the flying itself. That feels a bit grey, but if the guy is a friend, it would work I guess.

[Chris B]

ORS4 859 is out.

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?c ... il&id=4553

John, please could you clarify if:

1. the LAA has been confirmed as legally meeting the requirements of being a club?

2. the situation re sole ownership?

Regards,

Chris