HB-JAN wrote:
therefore no CPL rights are exercised.
Yes, they are. As I have now written several times (with reference to the regs the first time), receiving remuneration for CPL training is a CPL privilege.
A pilot “exercising the privilege” of a PPL can’t get paid, no matter if the operation is commercial or not. There are a few exception to this basic rule, but training for the CPL is not one of them.
lionel wrote:
Also, it would not be allowed to receive remuneration when instructing for the CPL while exercising the privileges of a PPL as the derogation that allows PPLs to receive remuneration for flight training is limited to LAPL/PPL.
Good point.
In the EU Commission Regulation No. 965/2012 of October 5, 2012, in Art. 1 No. 1, “Commercial Air Transport Operation” (CAT Operation) is referred to in analogy to the ICAO definition as:
“Operation of aircraft for the carriage of of passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or other consideration of monetary value.”
This clarifies that even according to the European regulations, the performance of training flights in the context of a flight school does not qualify
as “commercial transportation”, and therefore no CPL rights are exercised.
lionel wrote:
my local ATO is a non-profit club, and instructs CPL, ATPL, MCC, some type ratings (yes, real type ratings for multi-engine turboprop/jet/turbofans)
That’s some club! As much as I would liked it to be typical, I would say it’s very exceptional.
Airborne_Again wrote:
While non-commercial instructing for the PPL is common (in the club environment), I would think it is very unusual with non-commercial instructing for the CPL.
<shrug> my local ATO is a non-profit club, and instructs CPL, ATPL, MCC, some type ratings (yes, real type ratings for multi-engine turboprop/jet/turbofans)
Also, it would not be allowed to receive remuneration when instructing for the CPL while exercising the privileges of a PPL as the derogation that allows PPLs to receive remuneration for flight training is limited to LAPL/PPL.
Good point.
HB-JAN wrote:
It is relatively clear that “flight training” is not a commercial activity and it is not a “commercial air transport operation”
An ATO can be commercial in the sense that it operates for profit and part-NCO/NCC will still apply. The maintenance regs (part-ML) make a clear distinction between “commercial” and “non-commercial” ATOs/DTOs. In any case the derogation that allows someone “exercising the privileges” of a PPL to accept remuneration for flight training only applies to training for the LAPL/PPL.
Airborne_Again wrote:
On the other hand non-commercial flight training actually is a “non-commercial operation”. So by that logic a CPL holder would need a class 1 medical to instruct for the CPL at a commercial ATO, but a class 2 medical would be sufficient at a non-commercial ATO. That actually makes some kind of sense.
It is relatively clear that “flight training” is not a commercial activity and it is not a “commercial air transport operation”, even if this is done for remuneration.
It is also not distinguished whether a DTO of the ATO is operated in a club environment or not.
Please consult this document on page 3 “Flight Training Qualification”.
https://ffac.ch/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Fluglehrer-im-schweizerischen-Recht.pdf
lionel wrote:
I would agree with that. The list of “privileges of the holder of a CPL” is defined in FCL.305 CPL and does not include instructing:
Neither does the list of privileges of a PPL holder… FCL.205.A(a): The privileges of the holders of a PPL(A) are to act without remuneration as PIC or co-pilots of aeroplanes or TMGs engaged in non-commercial operations and to exercise all privileges of holders of an LAPL(A).
On the other hand non-commercial flight training actually is a “non-commercial operation”. So by that logic a CPL holder would need a class 1 medical to instruct for the CPL at a commercial ATO, but a class 2 medical would be sufficient at a non-commercial ATO. That actually makes some kind of sense.
But the question is if this helps @HB-JAN in practise. While non-commercial instructing for the PPL is common (in the club environment), I would think it is very unusual with non-commercial instructing for the CPL. Also, it would not be allowed to receive remuneration when instructing for the CPL while exercising the privileges of a PPL as the derogation that allows PPLs to receive remuneration for flight training is limited to LAPL/PPL.
I do wish the regs could be more explicit. What do you think @Qalupalik?
I eat my words 
But it is still nonsense – you should not need a medical to apply for a license.
lionel wrote:
I had in mind that the initial issue of the CPL requires a class 1 medical… (…) I have never checked the legal requirement for that.
It is Part-MED.A.030.(b):
An applicant for a licence, in accordance with Annex I (Part-FCL), shall hold a medical certificate issued in accordance with this Annex (Part-MED) and appropriate to the licence privileges applied for.
