Alright, so it’s about mandatory CAMO.
It’s funny that you can operate “NCO” (non commercial other than blabla) commercially in an ATO, thus requiring a camo.
Yes, I know “NCO” is a regulation meant as a category/definition of airplane and use in a specific operating regime, but still, it’s a bit contradictory. In essence a commercial operation (for profit ato training) is taking place under non commercial operation regulations.
Yeah, the commercial/non-commercial DTO is simply rubbish. Very unlucky that it ended up there in a very late stage of the rule making process.
When the authorities decides to enforce this, all “commercial” DTOs will simply start a non-profit organization that holds the declaration and then rent the aircraft and instructor from the “commercial” company.
I still don’t understand. Could anyone explain it in very simple terms.
Fly310 wrote:
When the authorities decides to enforce this, all “commercial” DTOs will simply start a non-profit organization that holds the declaration and then rent the aircraft and instructor from the “commercial” company.
That wouldn’t fly (ha!) because then the non-profit would wet lease the aircraft and that would make the non-profit “commercial”.
Fly310 wrote:
Speaking of templates, the Swedish CAA just released a new template for Part-ML:
mall_amp_enligt_annex_vb_del_ml_pdfIt is available in word format(swedish website) here
A similar template is available from the UK CAA here PDF local copy
which is accessible from https://www.caa.co.uk/Part-ML/. I believe they have taken it from the EASA AMC to Part-ML.
Bathman wrote:
I still don’t understand. Could anyone explain it in very simple terms.
It is all about what maintenance regime to apply. A non-commercial flight school
While a commercial flight school
So the question is what makes a flight school commercial or non-commercial.
The Guidance Material, while not binding, has the following criteria for the organisation running a non-commercial flight school
Then there are some special cases where aircraft temporarily operated by an commercial flight school can still use the same maintenance regime as if the flight school was non-commercial
AA thats really nice of you.
Thank you very much.
How does this tie in with the UK CAA interpretation local copy ?
Airborne_Again wrote:
That wouldn’t fly (ha!) because then the non-profit would wet lease the aircraft and that would make the non-profit “commercial”.
I find that hard to believe since many aero clubs rent aircraft and property. Why would that make them commercial?
Fly310 wrote:
I find that hard to believe since many aero clubs rent aircraft and property. Why would that make them commercial?
The rules say nothing about renting property. As regards aircraft, the key word is “dry”. I don’t think any aeroclub has wet leased aircraft. In your example, it would certainly be wet lease as the instructor was included in the lease.
