I am unable to reach the relevant team at the CAA at the present time.
I tend to agree with Jacko. The change in wording from the old version to the new version should exclude training received by the operator of an aircraft.
My interpretation would be that if the operator was a training school, charging students for training, then the authorization would still be required.
Yes, that’s correct. But see CAPs 1335 and 1414 for current and future intentions:
Aerial work with aircraft registered outside the EEA
(Article 225)
This will be amended to only require permission when an aircraft registered outside of the European Economic Area (EEA) is used for a commercial operation in the UK. This will continue to capture any aerial survey or photography if conducted commercially. If not conducted commercially, we see no reason to retain the requirement for a permission. The common scenario in which the owner of a non-EEA registered aircraft pays an instructor for flight training in their aircraft will not be considered a commercial operation.
In advance of April 2017, we will consider what the appropriate provision for the commercial use of non-EEA registered aircraft should be. For operators that are resident within the EU, all aircraft, regardless of registration must be operated in accordance with EASA operations and licensing rules from April 2016 anyway. Therefore it may be more logical to change the permission requirement to cover operators that are not resident in the EU, regardless of the registration of the aircraft itself
From a lawyer pilot friend :
Just seen the thread on Article 225 and flight training. I know that the CAA interprets the new Article 225 as not requiring permission for flight training by the owners of the aircraft. I was told as much in terms when I tried to renew my permission a couple of months ago. Updating the relevant guidance on the CAA website is apparently on the todo list.
fantastic news, thank-you very much
FWIW, the current CAA website says the following, which is basically the same old stuff, and note the footnote after the word “training” for which no reference is provided 
…
Obviously they want to prevent N-regs being used for business e.g. flight training by ATOs. But maybe there is an attempt to separate out owner training, which would make sense. For all the years, people have been trying to work around it by
That page on the CAA website refers to Article 225 of the ANO 2009 (SI 2009/3015), which is as dead as a parrot. The whole instrument was revoked by the Air Navigation Order 2016 on 25 August 2016.
In other words, that CAA web page hasn’t caught up with the current ANO (August 2016), the relevant Article of which is number 252, the intended interpretation of which is amply and authoritatively stated on page 12 of CAP 1414 (May 2016).
Simples!
I checked with the CAA this week (BFR next week in my N-reg aircraft) and they confirmed by email this morning that I do not need a permit.
Brilliant news – thanks. Would you be able to post any of that email? There are some people on the FAA scene in the UK who refuse to believe it
Peter wrote:
There are some people on the FAA scene in the UK who refuse to believe it
To be fair, it’s probably more a matter of said people wanting to see the CAA’s guidance / opinion in their own writing…which the email to DA40drvr may constitute…
