Post by bounce on Mar 27, 2015 16:45:52 GMT 12
Its hard to have much sympathy in my opinion. Pt115 exists to certify commercial adventure flights, and trial flights exist to introduce potential students to flight training. The reality is that many trial flight customers don't intend to continue of course. However since "trial flight" doesn't appear in the rules the flight is just a normal ab-initio training flight, albeit one marketed as a trial. There isn't much abinitio conducted in a Pitts...
To be honest I'm surprised so many people here support the Motueka operation when they were undercutting other certified operations. The CAA have been on their case for a long time, so they've had time. If you're argument is they shouldn't need certification your argument is really against 115 and should be framed as such.
The "trial flight = fun" statement was from Vector if I recall, so should maybe be taken with a grain of salt. I don't think it should have been described as such, and am surprised it was. We all know any flight is fun, and the purpose of any trial flight is a fun intro to training to try and capture a customer. Doing it inverted in a Pitts though is hard to justify.
To be honest I'm surprised so many people here support the Motueka operation when they were undercutting other certified operations. The CAA have been on their case for a long time, so they've had time. If you're argument is they shouldn't need certification your argument is really against 115 and should be framed as such.
The "trial flight = fun" statement was from Vector if I recall, so should maybe be taken with a grain of salt. I don't think it should have been described as such, and am surprised it was. We all know any flight is fun, and the purpose of any trial flight is a fun intro to training to try and capture a customer. Doing it inverted in a Pitts though is hard to justify.
