Instant Expert

Airworthiness for self-fly hire

Some recent CAA advice prompts Ed Bellamy to take a look at the rules…

Since covering Part-M Light (ML) airworthiness regulations last issue, the CAA has published further guidance relating to aircraft maintained under Part-ML when being used in a ‘non-equity’ group arrangement. The guidance focuses on whether the owner of the aircraft should contract a Part-CAO or CAMO organisation (an airworthiness management organisation) to manage its airworthiness requirements.

The term ‘non-equity’ group has become more common in the last few years, but as far as the Air Navigation Order (ANO) or EASA regulations are concerned, it has no legal distinction from self-fly hire – someone is making a payment (or ‘valuable consideration’ as the ANO terms it), which confers on them the use of the aircraft for a flight.

Usually the only practical difference between a non-equity group and ad hoc self-fly hire is that a monthly subscription must be paid in addition to hourly rates and that there is an expectation of an ongoing commitment. It does not normally imply any ownership of the aircraft or corporate body that may own the aircraft. However, it can prove more rewarding and flexible than hiring from a school or club, often with better availability and more of a group atmosphere. From a regulatory point of view, it is just hire though, and for EASA aircraft with a certificate of airworthiness, making an aircraft available for self-fly hire attracts no additional airworthiness requirements over and above normal private flight.

Now you might be wondering why the CAA is issuing related guidance if a non-equity group is just hire and there are no additional regulatory requirements associated with this. I think the point being made is twofold – firstly, setting up a non-equity group in no way dilutes the responsibility under Part-ML of the legal owner of the aircraft to ensure that it is maintained in airworthy condition, and secondly that in a non-equity group arrangement, the possible diversity and/or intensity of use may be such that contracting a Part-CAO or CAMO organisation is advisable. The time and competence of owners to manage the airworthiness of their aircraft in such a context will likely vary, so this seems like fair advice that reflects a risk-based approach.

Larger non-equity groups, for example, may result in a similar utilisation profile to that of a flight school, for which, if operated on a commercial basis there is a requirement under Part-ML to contract a Part-CAO or CAMO organisation.

Under ML the requirement to contract essentially comes in with ‘commercial operations’, which under EASA pure self-fly hire is not included. The UK position prior to EASA treated self-fly hire as public transport for airworthiness purposes and required a ‘public transport’ certificate of airworthiness. It remains to be seen whether the contract requirement in ML will prove to be of much significance – many private owners contracted a CAMO under the old Part-M, even though there was no requirement to. Under Part-ML with the new combined maintenance and management CAO approval, I suspect most aircraft maintained by a single organisation will probably be done under a management contract as well, unless the owner wishes to design and manage the maintenance programme themselves.

The CAA guidance is addressing EASA (or ‘Part-21’ as we will know them in 2021) aircraft. But while we are discussing non-equity groups and hire, we can touch on non-EASA aircraft as well, particularly Permit aircraft since the requirements are slightly different.

Restriction relaxation

One of the welcome developments of the last few years in GA has been the gradual relaxation of restrictions on the use of national Permit to Fly aircraft when some sort of valuable consideration has changed hands in association with the flight.

Not so long ago it was generally not possible to hire a Permit aircraft or pay for flight training in one unless you were the owner of it.

In 2018 the CAA started allowing Permit to Fly aircraft to be hired out, although there are some additional requirements administered by the relevant association responsible for overseeing the permit – either the Light Aircraft Association (LAA) or British Microlight Aircraft Association (BMAA). The requirements are straightforward and essentially amount to having a formal maintenance programme and a pilot’s operating handbook – details are contained in the relevant technical leaflets or codes of practice as published by the LAA and BMAA. This change enabled the formation of ‘non-equity’ groups with Permit aircraft. The issue of whether to contract a CAMO does not really figure in the world of Permit aircraft, but the principle that the owner is ultimately responsible for the airworthiness of the aircraft remains the same.

Talking of Permit aircraft, in October the CAA published their response to a recent consultation on allowing certain Permit types to be used by flying schools for ab initio training.

Currently such training is limited to those already holding a licence, unless they own the aircraft. While the change will initially be limited to former CofA aircraft, smaller ex-military types and amateur built microlights, it does sound like another victory for risk-based regulation.

Click here for more information.

Share

Leave a Reply

Share

We use cookies to give you the best online experience. Please let us know if you agree to all of these cookies.