Peter wrote:
The only thing I have trouble grasping is the lack of detail in how exactly the president’s liability is limited. And it has to be limited otherwise nobody would do the job.
I don’t think you’ll find this sort of thing itemized in the law. It’s open ended on purpose and up to a judge to decide. I assume they have some guidelines for aeroclubs. If you let someone to drive your car, how do you limit your liability as an owner and operator?
Of course, you would normally hire someone with appropriate qualifications and shift the responsibility to them. Such a simple scheme probably wouldn’t be bulletproof; if there are signs that something is wrong, you might be expected to do something about it since you’re the boss. I suppose it could be done in this case. But it doesn’t solve anything. If we’re talking about a bunch of volunteers, you still have the issue of who would want the responsibility.
If you let someone to drive your car, how do you limit your liability as an owner and operator?
By making sure they are insured to drive it. Nothing less will do.
if there are signs that something is wrong, you might be expected to do something about it since you’re the boss.
Yes, if there is evidence that you knew about the irregularities.
It would be interesting to know the full details of the prosecutions of those French aeroclub presidents.
With 2975 French people viewing EuroGA in the past 30 days, viewing on average 6 pages on each visit, I am sure somebody will pop in soon with the full details 
tmo wrote:
Not to start a discussion about going past TBO, but following that logic we don’t allow “on condition” engines on our club planes, because our local CAA frowns on that
I wouldn’t be surprised if most of EU member states didn’t allow maintaining club planes on condition. Same goes for planes that are rented out. There are different requirements for different operations. The fact that an aeroplane is airworthy doesn’t mean you can do whatever you wish with it. However, this is not something I’m particularly interested in. Just the thought of directing an aeroclub gives me a headache. 
Peter wrote:
By making sure they are insured to drive it. Nothing less will do.
That won’t protect you if there was something wrong with the car and it lead to an accident. If someone dies as a result of it, you can go to prison.
Peter wrote:
Yes, if there is evidence that you knew about the irregularities.
Not necessarily. Some places it’s enough that you should have and could have known. It’s obviously not as bad as if you knew and it could be proven.
From memory.
There was a DR400 that crashed on Corsica with 3 or 4 POB. The previous day the pilot (a holiday maker on the island) had performed a familiarization flight with a designated member of the club (not instructor). The next he came back with a friend to perform a solo fight. The person with whom he had done the familiarization flight was present and the pilot asked him to come along for the ride.
They took off with the renter/pilot in the left front seat and landed at another airport. On the way back they crashed in high terrain and 2 of the 3 occupants were killed. The pilot survived although injured. The airplane was later found to be overweight.
The pilit sued the health insurance, the aircraft insurance and the aeroclub (represented by its president) for negligence because the person that provided the familiarization was not an instructor, and that person was allegedly the PIC on the day of the accident.
In this case the court did not rule in favour of the plaintiff because the pilot had a valid SEP and there is no legal requirement for the person accompanying the pilot doing a familiarization flight to be an instructor. The court also ruled that the plaintiff was the PIC of the accident flight.
Martin wrote:
I wouldn’t be surprised if most of EU member states didn’t allow maintaining club planes on condition. Same goes for planes that are rented out.
But why?
I mean – the general idea behind an Aeroclub, at least around here, is for members to train their flying skills. “Training flights” are Part NCO: EASA FAQ #19124 and #19123 (third from last paragraph). The clubs we are discussing are also “not for profit” entities, so that further supports the planes being under Part NCO. Yes, such past-TBO planes could not be used in e.g. an AOC run by the club, but that is something else entirely.
Commercial flight schools are businesses, so they should be interested in making money, but then they conduct “training flights” as part of their business, so, again, Part NCO can be argued.
I can see how “on condition” could be problematic when renting out to the general public, but that would depend on lots of things. If a plane was rented with the explicit intent of conducting a “training flight”, then by extension of the “commercial flight school” logic, I can see how that rental could be under Part NCO.
Also from FAQ #19123 (actually, from Art. 3 of EU 965/2012) the definition of a “commercial operation” is:
“(i) ‘commercial operation’ shall mean any operation of an aircraft, in return for remuneration or other valuable consideration, which is available to the public or, when not made available to the public, which is performed under a contract between an operator and customer, where the latter has no control over the operator”
In a club, all pilots are members, so it can be reasoned they DO have control over the operator (the club).
When renting directly from an owner/operator I can see how the renter does not have control over the operator, thus making the operation commercial. But that still doesn’t account for the commercial flight schools falling under non commercial.
Perhaps what the pilot uses the plane for is what matters?
How is one’s head NOT to explode?
How is one’s head NOT to explode?
I think all paid flight training is commercial as a starting point, but then schools/clubs are given an exemption from needing an AOC, provided certain conditions are met.
That has been the long standing position in the UK. Historical details here (search page for “Summary of”). No idea what the current regulation is. @bookworm will know.
This will be the case in most countries because an AOC would kill PPL training. Some schools/clubs have an AOC anyway, to do charter ops in twins and to get duty free avgas.
The maintenance situation, versus different types of usage, is very complicated and has changed many times. It is so complicated that even some AOC holders don’t know the details. I know one such who used a 145 company because they thought they had to but then they found (from the CAA) that their particular operation (A-A AOC in a SEP) could use a normal Part M maint firm.
The pilit sued the health insurance, the aircraft insurance and the aeroclub (represented by its president) for negligence because the person that provided the familiarization was not an instructor, and that person was allegedly the PIC on the day of the accident.
In this case the court did not rule in favour of the plaintiff because the pilot had a valid SEP and there is no legal requirement for the person accompanying the pilot doing a familiarization flight to be an instructor. The court also ruled that the plaintiff was the PIC of the accident flight.
I am not surprised. A PIC is a PIC and if his paperwork is straight, that’s it. It could be different if a “passenger” was an FI… I seem to recall such a case in the USA, but IIRC the circumstances were unusual (a novice pilot).
But where does the club president’s liability arise? In this case it didn’t. Somebody smelt money and had a go (and failed).
@tmo You should be looking at maintenance regs, not operation ones. And just because they allow them to follow Part-NCO (perhaps to reduce administrative burden) doesn’t mean they’re not commercial. IIRC EASA published some time ago some guidelines about TBO extension. It was then withdrawn because some NAAs had some issues implementing it (they should get back to it some time in the future). I think you’ll find these things in AMCs and GMs to Part-M. You can dig out the relevant decisions. And there might be something in the maintenance part of FAQ (continuing airworthiness).
tmo wrote:
In a club, all pilots are members, so it can be reasoned they DO have control over the operator (the club).
There are different clubs. A club with elected board, and where the club as an entity own the aircraft, is very different from a “club” where a handful of people own and fly an aircraft, either individually or within a company. What exactly constitutes a club will determine if different regulations than used for private ownership is to be used. This is probably different from country to country also where slightly different regimes has grown up over time.
Peter wrote:
That has been the long standing position in the UK. Historical details here (search page for “Summary of”). No idea what the current regulation is.
The current plan is in the ANO Review. Pages 8-14 set this out in some detail. It is essentially to migrate to the EASA definitions.
There’s a bit of complexity around “commercial operation” and the derogations in the EASA Air Ops regulation. Flight training for which a customer pays an operator is, literally, a commercial operation, but in the EASA implementing rules there are derogations that mean that it does not have to obey any of the rules applied to commercial operations. So I take a rather teleological view and say that it’s therefore non-commercial. Others disagree, and you’ll see evidence of that on page 13. It would be somewhat ironic if the definition of “commercial operation” disappears (as the Commission plans) from the Basic Regulation but remains in the UK ANO. Its rather contorted wording was proposed by a Frenchman!
