the law surrounding part 96

Matters of general interest
User avatar
lamercyfly
Top Gun
Top Gun
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:56 am
Location: Durban
Contact:

Re: the law surrounding part ]

Postby lamercyfly » Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:41 pm

Hi Skybound. You directed your question to Craig, but I am going to give your question a shot...

A school can not apply for a part96 Authorisation. It is like saying to an owner of a part 141 ATO for PPL training, "how many schools have applied for commercial pilot licences"... Same thing. Part 96 Autho is the equivalent of a commercia pilotl licence, but for NPL pilots..

But if your question is meant to be "How many schools have applied to include part 96 on their ops manual?", then I can tell you that I have, but todate there is no syllabus...

Did I misunderstand your question?

Regards6
David Daniel
Email: lamercyfly@gmail.com
Mobile: +27 (0)746495744
User avatar
skybound®
Frequent Flyer
Frequent Flyer
Posts: 1223
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:51 pm
Location: Port Elizabeth

Re: the law surrounding part 96

Postby skybound® » Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:32 am

Your answer was spot on David.
vhpy

So the next question is - was this the real intent for Part 96 to cover training, or did we all just miss the ramifciation when it was published for comment? Where are all the other schools on this matter?
Africa
I hate turbulence
I hate turbulence
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: everywhere

Re: the law surrounding part 96

Postby Africa » Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:21 pm

the harder and more expensive it becomes to opperate legally the more illegal "clubs" will start to opperate ## make it simple, make it practical and then inforce it or leave it alone.
User avatar
lamercyfly
Top Gun
Top Gun
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:56 am
Location: Durban
Contact:

Re: the law surrounding part 96

Postby lamercyfly » Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:46 am

Hi folk.

I am not aware, ever, of any mention of forcing ATO's to get their instructors Part 96 Autho'd so their ratings can be validated.

NTCA ops is totally different to the Blik stuff.

So, no, Part 62 Instructor rating is a rating independent of Part 96 Autho's. Part 96 was created to allow for commercial operation of NTCA's OUTSIDE of schools and instructors.

The problem is that, instead of adding a few words to existing law which would remove without a shadow of doubt, the legality of the intro flights we do as exercise 3 from our Part 141 ATO's for Potential students, our parent Body (Read AcSA, RAASA, MISASA) jumped onto the bandwagon of 'narrow' thinking and decided that for flips to be legal everyone who wants to do flips should get an Class 3 ASL, with associated Ops Certificate and pilots must get a commercial rating (part 96 autho).... All folly my friend. All folly... for flips. Good for all the other section 16 things like I mentioned before..

What is important to remember, is that when Anet and I opened La Mercy Flight Park, we were the first ATO in South Africa to be approved under Part 141. The previous way of getting a training school WAS TO GET AN ASL FROM DOT. Those of us who have been around a while will remember what an almost IMPOSSIBLE task that was. That's why Part 141 was written, so that schools could be removed from the arena of 'commercial' operations, thereby eliminating the requirement for and ASL.

I do not believe that any sane person or body in the industry would allow the training industry (Part 141 ATO, s) to be dragged back into that fiasco. I am confident that such a move would be picked up by folk that monitor regulatory matters.

Your thoughts, Sky..
David Daniel
Email: lamercyfly@gmail.com
Mobile: +27 (0)746495744
User avatar
skybound®
Frequent Flyer
Frequent Flyer
Posts: 1223
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:51 pm
Location: Port Elizabeth

Re: the law surrounding part 96

Postby skybound® » Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:59 am

My thoughts are that a proposal should go forward to remove the words training from Part 96 - ie it should exclude ATOs and flight training operations.

Intro flights are just that - bliks have been doing it for years and still do via the ATO. Micros were doing it too. If it wasn't broken - why did they 'fix it'. If there were operators bending or pushing the intro flight definition - dont make it an issue for the entire industry - address the rogue operator.
wildthing
First solo
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:19 am
Location: Somewhere in the SKY or in Africa

Re: the law surrounding part 96

Postby wildthing » Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:13 am

[quote="lamercyfly" wrote]

The problem is that, instead of adding a few words to existing law which would remove without a shadow of doubt, the legality of the intro flights we do as exercise 3 from our Part 141 ATO's for Potential students, our parent Body (Read AcSA, RAASA, MISASA) jumped onto the bandwagon of 'narrow' thinking and decided that for flips to be legal everyone who wants to do flips should get an Class 3 ASL, with associated Ops Certificate and pilots must get a commercial rating (part 96 autho).... All folly my friend. All folly... for flips. Good for all the other section 16 things like I mentioned before..


Please do not jump to conclusions and drop insults without having the facts, or being part of the discussions that took place of what is being done and, what we are attempting to achieve.

1. Part 62 subpart 14 provides for NPL with a commercial endorsement for the pilot (not the aircraft or operation)
This is for pilots that want to fly commercially but do not have a part 61 Comm. licence, i.e. microlight, gyro etc used for game counting, power line inspections, security work, agriculture etc, or "flipping if not instructor rated or operating under an ATO.
2. Part 96 will relate to the AC being approved and maintained to a higher "Comm." standard.
3. The requirement for an AOC and DASL will still apply.

Even though the regulation provides for the rating under Part 62, the CATS and Appendices where never completed, we are simply addressing this issue and provide this avenue for those who want to follow this route.

The issue of flipping, scenic, introductory flights under an approved ATO, by a rated instructor is something else entirely.
Whilst I personally think that this is the better avenue to allow for flipping legally as it adds value to the growth and awareness of recreational flying, however this is not the “Intention” of Exercise 3.

If the Pax only intends to go for a ride, and sit in the backseat while taking some photos whilst enjoying the scenery and something goes wrong that ends up in court, the pilot/operator will have a very hard time trying to defend his case as the "Intention" was never to go for an intro flight and or learn to fly, but clearly to go for a scenic, leisure, sightseeing etc, type flight.
The concept of “Intention” plays a very powerful role in a court.

We would like to see a change to this and turn a De facto situation into a De jure situation thus offering a proper and legal avenue to offer flips under an ATO, sadly we are not there yet.

Pierre
0845012177
User avatar
skybound®
Frequent Flyer
Frequent Flyer
Posts: 1223
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:51 pm
Location: Port Elizabeth

Re: the law surrounding part 96

Postby skybound® » Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:14 pm

Pierre, does what you are explaining still allow an ATO to do Exercise 3 without bringing Part 96 into play? I am referring to training and not any form of sightseeing - as in what Exercise 3 was intended for.
wildthing
First solo
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:19 am
Location: Somewhere in the SKY or in Africa

Re: the law surrounding part 96

Postby wildthing » Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:12 pm

Hi Skybound.

Yes absolutely.
The difference is that a person may call or arrive at an airfield to enquire or discover what obtaining a pilots licence is all about, i.e. cost, how long it takes, what they need to know and do etc.
So the “intention” is to learn to fly and obtain a licence and even perhaps their own aircraft.

This requires that a student file is opened, the instructor and student details are entered into the Authorisation sheet, and a pre-flight briefing is conducted highlighting what the flights will consist of and an overview of the aircraft controls etc.
The student may be allowed to manipulate the controls and get a feel and sensation flying, perhaps even some the different types of manoeuvres that he or she will be learning.
This should be followed by a post flight briefing.
Hopefully all this leads to an enthusiastic student that will return and complete his training. If his intro flight was a good experience.

A scenic flight passenger clearly never had the intention to learn to fly, he may however decide that he enjoyed his experience so much that he/she has decided to take up flying and get their license, so the intention may change after the fact.


PL
thomasclark952
Slow starter
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:25 am

Re: the law surrounding part 96

Postby thomasclark952 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:28 am

i was very curious to this topic thank you for sharing information and your views about this topic
User avatar
alanmack
Top Gun
Top Gun
Posts: 569
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Virtual Aviation without Geographic Boundries

Re: the law surrounding part 96

Postby alanmack » Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:18 am

SEND-YOUR-INFO-TO-NEMO@WEBO.CO.ZA.jpg
SEND-YOUR-INFO-TO-NEMO@WEBO.CO.ZA.jpg (23.65 KiB) Viewed 2253 times
Claim and run a debate at Tedderfield.

Collect and share opinion. All the authorities will be there call for speakers - collect topic entries from those that cannot be there - run an open debate for an hour or so - I'll organise the venue and a prize for the best idea.

This is an NB matter - use Tedderfield to gather opinion from the 1,000 pilots that are promising to attend.

Have your say and be heard by more!

Send requirements to nemo@webo.co.za
NEMO
I have now joined the ranks of wannabe pilots!
User avatar
skybound®
Frequent Flyer
Frequent Flyer
Posts: 1223
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:51 pm
Location: Port Elizabeth

Re: the law surrounding part 96

Postby skybound® » Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:00 am

Thanks Pierre. That clears it up.

As long as ATOs can do the Exercise 3 - for it's proper intention - then there is no issue.
User avatar
LarryMcG
Top Gun
Top Gun
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:43 pm
Location: Grahamstown
Contact:

Re: the law surrounding part 96

Postby LarryMcG » Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:12 pm

Ok, so how do we legally do exercise 3 with an 8 year old kid?

LM
Still Flying
User avatar
skybound®
Frequent Flyer
Frequent Flyer
Posts: 1223
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:51 pm
Location: Port Elizabeth

Re: the law surrounding part 96

Postby skybound® » Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:09 am

LarryMcG wrote:Ok, so how do we legally do exercise 3 with an 8 year old kid?

LM
With only being able to apply for a Student licence at 16 - would it make sense to take him on an intro 8 years early?

I think this gap is serviced by the Young Eagles Program.
User avatar
Gyronaut
Toooooo Thousand
Toooooo Thousand
Posts: 2265
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:26 pm
Location: Morningstar - Cape Town, Western Cape

Re: the law surrounding part 96

Postby Gyronaut » Sun Jan 27, 2013 10:08 am

Good topic, thanks Dave.
skybound® wrote:
lamercyfly wrote:... Also - how many schools have complied to date?
Our Gyro school in Cape Town is in the process of applying for part 96. Its a documentation exercise only as the school, instructors and machines already comply to 141.
I do not consider Part 96 to be a requirement for schools doing the traditional intro flights only but feel it should be in place if you are doing scenic flights. The thin line of intent is understood and sometimes my conscience bothers me when a wife buys her husband a birthday 'intro flight'. My logic in deciding to go for it was simply to be SURE that we would not fall foul of the law one day.

I am led to believe it will cost between R5 and R10k in total. Small price to pay for the peace of mind.

Len
User avatar
lamercyfly
Top Gun
Top Gun
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:56 am
Location: Durban
Contact:

Re: the law surrounding part 96

Postby lamercyfly » Sat Feb 16, 2013 5:34 pm

Hi Len and others.

Thanks for what you are doing Len, although I am sceptical with regard the cost mentioned. Keep us posted. I am also concerned as, in a way, you may be opening a loop hole for CAA to enforce this on all of us...

Much rather that we found the solution within Part 141, regardless of the age of the pax Larry:)

Pierre, thanks for taking the time to comment. But you forget, I was involved in this long before you came onto the scene, so sorry, I am aware of what I am speaking about. I communicated with Neil not too long ago, and the status quo was still as it has been from day one..

What is interesting to note, is that the current CAR's make clear and concise mention of the word Potential Student. I am sure you know this, but if need be I can refer readers to the exact law.

Now, herein lies the crux! The is as yet NO DEFINITION of 'potential student', and taking the initiative in this matter, and defining such that the person who comes to my school to do a 'scenic microlight flight' can be legally seen as a potential student would go one loong way to clearing things up.

Secondly, the exercises you mention, do not form part of Ex 3. Kindly refer to the CAT's for clarification. They are part of ex 1 and 2. I have just re-read your post, and it appears you have noted and amended your post, so that is no longer an issue.

However, some-one sitting in the back seat, enjoying the scenery and taking photos , is exactly what I want my potential student to do. This is exactly what they must do, to fall in love with flying and the view and the ecstasy and the beauty of it. That is the purpose of Ex 3, although written by beaurocrats and not poets, the meaning is clear.... To experience flight:) And yes, we do point out land marks etc.,

I am still of the learned opinion, that a Part 141 ATO is fully within their rights to take some-one for an introductory flight as exercise 3, as long as the following criteria are met:

1. The Potential Student fills out the standard administrative documention, and this documentation is kept for the legal 5 years
2. The Potential Student signs an authorisation sheet, ex 3.
3. The microlight used is on the Ops Spec File for the school
4. The instructor piloting the microlight is on the Ops Spec File for the school.
5. The Potential Student is made aware of the fact that they are undertaking the flight as a Potential Student. It is of no concern to me under what impression the pax arrived at the field. The important issue is, “Did the pax know, before they embarked on the flight, that they were joining the ATO to undertake lesson 3, Air Experience, and as such, they are a potential student for the ATO.”
6. The indemnity clearly states this intention of the ATO, that the pax is viewed as a potential student.
7. The flight is undertaken from the schools registered base of training.

At my school, the person responsible for the admin on the day, is responsible for the above. We do NOT issue tickets:)

It is a historical fact, that many, many pilots who are flying today, entered the industry from an introductory flight on a microlight. This fact alone substantiates my claim that all these folk who come and fly are Potential Students. The fact that the kid is 8 years old does NOT matter. I will still be here (God willing), when he turns 14 or 15 or 16 and comes back to start his training because of the flight he did with me when he was 8.

I hardly believe a court of law is going to find me guilty of an offence if my greatest sin remains an interpretation of my marketing material. I will market as I see fit, to get ‘feet through the door of my ATO’.. What is important is “Did the pax know BEFORE they signed the docs and joined the school...” They are welcome to turn around and leave if they don’t want to join the school. Fact is that no-one has ever objected to joining the school and doing Ex 3.

Concerning a de-brief, logbooks, progress reports and the such, I offer the following thought:

1. Ex 3 does not require a de-brief. What we do is socialise with our student after the flight. All they want is to share the exhiliration they have just experienced. That’s enough debrief for ex 3.
2. All my students are allowed to do a maximum of 3 lessons before they are obliged to pay an Admin Fee and open the rest of the file. ie, for these first 3 lessons, the only paper trail is the Potential Student Personal details and the indemnity. The rest of the stuff, progress reports, log books, Aircraft usuage agreement etc., comes later.. This works just fine, as some students do change their mind, either not continuing or moving to LSA.. So, they are all potential students!

Now, back to my basic argument, why not expend energy in setting a national standard, based on the above PLUS input from other ATO’s, for ATO’s to offer ex 3.. that would be money well spent ( I refer to my forced membership of AeCSA and MISASA) :)

Lets work together to find this very do-able solution. I note that somebody or somebodies are doing something about it.. Well, I've been doing Ex 3 intro flights for the past 15 years, I am a grade A instructor, owner operator of a Part 141 ATO... and I've heard nothing..

Kind regards.
David Daniel
Email: lamercyfly@gmail.com
Mobile: +27 (0)746495744

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests