Well it seems quite a few flying schools are now offering these.
One local to me has just started as they have an instructor shortage and the school that I work at is on the cusp of doing the very same – again due to lack of instructors.
When I first started working the school that I was at offered had an A to A AOC as in fact most schools had in those days. However the regulatory costs killed it.
So I quite like these changes. I think.
…normally under the dispensation of a trial lesson. Very few schools have an A2A AOC.
A2A AOC would be for pleasure or photo flights with passengers, and yes keeping the paperwork and AOC pilots approved involves a lot of work.
You can re locate to another airport under your A2A AOC, for example for photo sorties covering a specific event.
No, that’s the whole point – this is something new. An ‘Introductory Flight’ is not a ‘Trial Lesson’
IN-2015/029: Cost-Sharing, Sailplane Towing, Parachute Dropping, Flying Competitions and Introductory Flights by Private Pilots local copy
Stevelup thank you – would schools let PPLs carry out introductory flights?
The IN was posted here the other day.
However the CAA explanation doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
Surely this
is the same as a trial lesson except
1) a trial lesson can be logged
2) a trial lesson has to be done in a G-reg (never seen a reg saying so but I bet they would clamp down on anything else fast)
3) the bit about a PPL doing it is obvious: he can fly with passengers! And if he gets paid, what is the difference between that and cost sharing?
4) with a trial lesson there is the pretence that the passenger touched the controls
About point 3), if a PPL takes up somebody who has previously gone around the airport asking for pleasure flight trial lesson costs, he will be extremely unpopular! That is the main reason why a PPL aircraft owner is not going to be offering free flights to people who turn up for one. Trial lessons are a major revenue earner for most schools I have been in. The ones at Shoreham, where I was at 2000/2001, used to even bump students off lessons to do trial lessons.
So what is the practical difference?
They can’t go A to B.
I vaguely recall that selling vouchers for pleasure flights (which had to be done as trial lessons) was illegal… something in the press here years ago.
Well having done a bit of digging I now know of 6 schools that are letting PPL holders do them (they could of course let’s nppl holders do them)
I’m afraid I don’t really know the others well but the owner of one I do and he had to start offering them simply because he can’t find any instructors.
The school where I spend my most time at are in the process of getting everything in the back office sorted so if they have to offer them they can do quickly. They are also going to offer them to the microlight instructors first.
However with the number of instructors moving into the airlines at the moment I suspect they will be getting PPL holders to do them soon.
This is totally different to cost sharing?
1) The pilot cannot be paid, not one penny.
2) The flight has to be performed by an EASA approved ATO or ‘through an organisation created to promote aerial sport or leisure aviation’
It’s not like Fred Bloggs can set up a stall in the airport car park stealing business from the existing based operators.
It does feel a bit like a conspiracy against the poor old instructor – just when a shortage appears the regs change to allow free ‘instructors’.
Twenty years ago instructing was a viable job, albeit of a dignified blue collar nature.
The main intention of the change appears to be that “pleasure flights” can now be done by non-FIs.
However I have difficulty getting my head around this in the real situation of a flying school, as I know them. They rarely have (or want) PPL holders of some experience hanging around to start with. So how are they going to let them take up pleasure flight customers / potential PPL customers?
Is the intention here to enable schools to get new business, if they don’t have enough FIs to do these flights?
It’s an interesting proposition in that case, if it brings experienced PPLs into the school, where they can mentor PPL students. IME that was always frowned upon.
Sounds very much like the “baptêmes” traditionally given in French aéroclubs?.
A baptême does not require an instructor, but the designated pilot must meet certain criteria (at least 200 hours in total, of which 30 hours in the past 12 months).
The beneficiary of a baptême is technically a passenger. S/he takes RHS and does not handle the controls.
No instruction is provided.
So, not the same as a trial lesson (which obviously requires an instructor).
