CAA allowing Expiremental aircraft for training

[fly_tornado]

Experimental aircraft now allowed for use in training if owned by the student, or is a spouse or child of the owner, up to 20 owners per aircraft.

 

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/1143.pdf

 

... interesting move by the CAA! Will CASA follow suit?

 

 

[Kamloops]

That poor owner number 21.....

 

 

[fly_tornado]

This is relevant to Australia because in our infinite wisdom we did have this right but lost it without changing the law. I was bit upset about it because I believed it increased the cost of learning to fly, didn't improve safety but made it worse but the big knobs chose to look after the flying schools.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

This is relevant to Australia because in our infinite wisdom we did have this right but lost it without changing the law. I was bit upset about it because I believed it increased the cost of learning to fly, didn't improve safety but made it worse but the big knobs chose to look after the flying schools.

Why don't you think we can train in experimental aircraft in Australia? Do you have a reference? I am sure we are allowed to train in experimental aircraft if we own them or are a part owner. There is no minimum or maximum number of owners as far as I a aware. Family members are not specifically mentioned but it the family owns the aeroplane, why not? Finding an instructor willing to fly in a homebuilt and maintained aircraft may be a different matter.

 

 

[kasper]

Why don't you think we can train in experimental aircraft in Australia? Do you have a reference? I am sure we are allowed to train in experimental aircraft if we own them or are a part owner. There is no minimum or maximum number of owners as far as I a aware. Family members are not specifically mentioned but it the family owns the aeroplane, why not? Finding an instructor willing to fly in a homebuilt and maintained aircraft may be a different matter.

Yes and no I'm afraid.

Training in a 19- reg aircraft is the ONE area where there is a fundamental difference between initial builder and subsequent purchaser.

 

CAO95.55

 

Para 6.2 "In spite of sub-subparagraph 6.1 (a) (ii), if a person has wholly built or assembled an aeroplane to which this Order applies, or a group of persons has wholly built or assembled such an aeroplane, then that person, or each of those persons, may use the aeroplane for their personal flying training."

 

So you can use a 19- reg aircraft to learn to fly on ONLY if you are one of the original builders of the plane - otherwise you are not permitted to learn to fly in the aircraft.

 

FYI the peculiarity of the 20 owner rule in the UK is that there is a thriving business in flying schools or instructors owning the aircraft ans 'selling' non-equity shares to students to allow them to fly the aircraft ... and the student pays a wet hour fee for use ... to the self same instructor.

 

This may sound like an entire fiddle by the instructors (and it can be - thats why CAA limit group ownership to 20) BUT the UK rules are such that you cannot use a school aircraft to fly solo in as it requires ownership of the aircraft - and equally you could not (originally at all but still practically never) hire any form of microlight.

 

OZ is fundamentally different - we can hire factory built aircraft to both learn in and fly once certificated

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Yes and no I'm afraid.Training in a 19- reg aircraft is the ONE area where there is a fundamental difference between initial builder and subsequent purchaser.

 

CAO95.55

 

Para 6.2 "In spite of sub-subparagraph 6.1 (a) (ii), if a person has wholly built or assembled an aeroplane to which this Order applies, or a group of persons has wholly built or assembled such an aeroplane, then that person, or each of those persons, may use the aeroplane for their personal flying training."

 

So you can use a 19- reg aircraft to learn to fly on ONLY if you are one of the original builders of the plane - otherwise you are not permitted to learn to fly in the aircraft.

 

FYI the peculiarity of the 20 owner rule in the UK is that there is a thriving business in flying schools or instructors owning the aircraft ans 'selling' non-equity shares to students to allow them to fly the aircraft ... and the student pays a wet hour fee for use ... to the self same instructor.

 

This may sound like an entire fiddle by the instructors (and it can be - thats why CAA limit group ownership to 20) BUT the UK rules are such that you cannot use a school aircraft to fly solo in as it requires ownership of the aircraft - and equally you could not (originally at all but still practically never) hire any form of microlight.

 

OZ is fundamentally different - we can hire factory built aircraft to both learn in and fly once certificated

Yes RAAus is different to GA where the owner (not necessarily the builder) can train in it. Not sure why the difference and perhaps something that should be take up with CASA to change so that RAAus owners of home built aircraft can train in them.

 

 

[mAgNeToDrOp]

I guesst it would also depend if the schools insurance would cover the instructor and/or student in that aircraft.. but that is another can of worms

 

 

[fly_tornado]

previously the RAA stated you could use your own #19 aircraft for your endorsements, nav, passenger etc. once you had your cert.

 

Of course, lots of schools now don't have drifters so they are slowly killing off the older ultralights because you can't do a 2 stroke or a low performance endorsement. It all adds up to a lot of older RAA aircraft left in hangars collecting dust because the new pilots don't have access to the training.

 

There wasn't a shortage of instructors willing to train you in #19 aircraft

 

 

[poteroo]

Some encouraging changes there. I think it would be unlikely that flying schools would be enthusiastic about using a 19- registered aircraft because of the liability issues that might arise. Also - the current rule relating to training of subsequent owners.On the other hand, a 'group' ownership of a factory built 24- registered aircraft should be considered 'safe'. It would be insurable, as at present, because of ongoing maintenance by an L2 or LAME. If the 1/20th shares were able to be simply onsold, and RAAus be the keeper of the owner register - it should be workable and transparent enough to satisfy the regulator. I was an original member of an 8 person group back in the 60's and was able to easily and simply onsell my share. Why stop at 20 shares - why not 40? It would attract a lot more starters and enable the group to buy a very capable trainer.

 

I'd welcome it. Why would any school owner feel unhappy about using op's trainer - save us a whole heap of capital investment.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Nobody]

Some encouraging changes there. I think it would be unlikely that flying schools would be enthusiastic about using a 19- registered aircraft because of the liability issues that might arise. Also - the current rule relating to training of subsequent owners.On the other hand, a 'group' ownership of a factory built 24- registered aircraft should be considered 'safe'. It would be insurable, as at present, because of ongoing maintenance by an L2 or LAME. If the 1/20th shares were able to be simply onsold, and RAAus be the keeper of the owner register - it should be workable and transparent enough to satisfy the regulator. I was an original member of an 8 person group back in the 60's and was able to easily and simply onsell my share. Why stop at 20 shares - why not 40? It would attract a lot more starters and enable the group to buy a very capable trainer.I'd welcome it. Why would any school owner feel unhappy about using op's trainer - save us a whole heap of capital investment.

 

happy days,

If it is a factory built 24 anyone can train in it(and can pay). It doesn't need to be the owner.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The RAA liability insurance alredy covers instruction and covers #19 aircraft and both of the pilots, its hard to see how that liability issue would increased as most accidents are pilot error not aircraft related. Especially as in an endorsement situation where the pilot has a legal ability to fly the plane.

 

As best as I can tell the schools buried training in #19 aircraft, they are the only ones to benefit.

 

 

[Yenn]

Even if you built the plane and own it you still have to find an instructor who will agree to instruct in it.

 

For my GA flight revue I have to use the instructors plane because mine doesn't have dual controls and is also tandem seating, so I very much doubt that i could get any instruction in it.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

We will watch England and see how this pans out, anything that makes GA more attractive to new entrants has to be a good thing.

 

 

[dunlopdangler]

In G.A aircraft, CASA has a similar situation in training in an experimental aircraft as Depicted in the C.A.A regs.. However.. you will find a general reluctance with flying schools because of the potential to loose their profit margins from their own training aircraft.. they will of course use the insurance bogey.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

short term gain, long term pain

 

 

[Happyflyer]

The RAAus member insurance is only for third party damage and limited passenger damage. It does not cover a pilot or instructor. Additional insurance is needed.

 

I can fully understand the reluctance of instructors to train in owner built aircraft. Some are wonderfully well made, some are not. They are an unknown quantity. Some kits, such as RVs are very well made and assembly is easier than some others where builder competence is more important. I think a school's reluctance to use homebuilt aircraft is more related to this than making money. It's not only the build quality but also the ergonomics of some first time builders' aircraft leaves a lot to be desired. The only homebuilt aircraft I will train in are very well built RV aircraft that are LAME maintained or if I know the builder personally and am confident of his ability.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

if these planes are that unsafe, why are they flying?

 

 

[Happyflyer]

There are degrees of safety. Personally I prefer factory built aircraft. That's my choice because I feel I am decreasing my risks. I am sure if I built an aircraft I would feel it was safe but would completely understand if someone else felt increased risk meant they did not want to fly in my aircraft.

 

 

[rankamateur]

Factory built planes are often built to a standard, Not to a higher standard!

 

 

[Geoff13]

There are degrees of safety. Personally I prefer factory built aircraft. That's my choice because I feel I am decreasing my risks. I am sure if I built an aircraft I would feel it was safe but would completely understand if someone else felt increased risk meant they did not want to fly in my aircraft.

I felt like that also until something happened to convince me otherwise. Just because it is factory built does not make it perfect. In fact I have seen some home builds that would put factories to shame.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

I felt like that also until something happened to convince me otherwise. Just because it is factory built does not make it perfect. In fact I have seen some home builds that would put factories to shame.

I agree totally, some home builds are a work of art, however some are not. It's total risk I look at. If you had to make a decision, would you rather let your nearest and dearest fly in a GA or LSA factory built aicraft or a home made one you know nothing about. Relying on my experience, I would chose the factory build GA aircraft every time. Factory built LSA aircraft may not come up to my standard. It's a personal thing.

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm wondering if this move is a necessary one because of the rarity factor of some planes where you just can't find enough of them to justify a plane on line. Not sure it applies directly to our situation except 19 aircraft of any design could have a lot of variability. (individual features) the owner/builder wants to incorporate in his own aircraft even though still a relatively simple piece if kit. I can't see how you can force any instructor to fly in such a plane. perhaps doing basic training in something 24 and then conversion and consolidation in the other might be acceptable. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Factory built usually means LAME maintined. I have hired many planes over the years and the level of maintenance varies from excellent to abysmal. A C172 I hired ran up OK but took 20 mins to get to 5000'. I advised the owner and th plane was put into a LAME at Rocky, verdict, no problems. Someone else hired it with the same result. so back into the workshop, again no problems, but the pilot had an engine failure at take off, put it down on the strip and this time they found 2 burnt exhaust valves. That was an extreme example, but I always had a very good walk round with aircraft fresh out of maintenance and usually found loose screws in inspection openings or similar.

 

Now I do my own maintenance and while I may be a lot slower than the proffessional, I feel happier with the result.