Strange practice of a flying instructor?

[pussyboots]

Now I realise that this question at face value may appear strange (I am not a troll and this is a very serious question) The scenario leading up to this question is as below:

The instructor was taking two students (both male, late teens) for a trial lesson in a PA28, During the flight he asked the students to change seat (from front to back of aircraft) so that they could change over who was having the lesson.

My question is was this legal? and if not what sections of aviation law had been breached. Should the school report this to the CAA to protect themselves?

I have my own opinions as to the safety of such a practice, and my own thoughts on the wisdom of the instructor - no doubt others will have theirs.

Is this common practice in flying schools - no need to name and shame, just yes or no would be informative.

Thanks for your opinions on this.

YES it really did happen...

[AdamFrisch]

No law was broken. He was pilot in command - if the passengers swap seats in cruise (when there's no requirement to wear seat belts), then that's fine.

[mad_jock]

Its not common but not unheard of.


I have done it in the past when a PPL and his PPL mate were in the front I fell asleep in the back and the pair of prats managed to get themselves into hole of VMC with no way of getting out unless going IMC after deciding to change the route from the east coast to up the A9 mid trip, because it looked OK.

It was in a C172 and getting my fat arse into the front produced a stream of terrets strength swearing at the pair of prats and the aircraft.

Lesson learn from that though, not much point having an IR onboard if they can't get to the controls. I did consider leaning over and pattering instrument flying from the back but went for the get in the seat option. Still don't know if getting in the front was the best option.

[fireflybob]

When I was a Commercial Flying Instructor years ago we often did airborne changes - perfectly safe so long as managed correctly and also saved a lot of time giving more cost effective training.

[what next]

That's nothing, really. But back in the old days, people used to do this in Cessna 152s with the second "student" lying in the baggage compartment behind the seats ;)

[mikesworld]

I was flying a 172 many years ago and the guy in the right hand seat decided to climb into the back to retrieve a map, as he climbed over the seat back his foot slipped and kicked the right hand control yoke fully forward, he then proceeded to fly into the roof but fortunately landed in the back seat not on me.

So maybe not illegal but not a very good idea me thinks !

[Ollie Onion]

We used to do it all the time, saved a hell of a lot of time when you paired up two students who were doing the same lesson. Quite easily achieved and certainly no problem.

[Pace]

It is better to land and pull off the runway, changeover and takeoff again not just from a simplicity angle but also because the new pilot does a complete flight rather than being dropped in it!
The second problem is that some light aircraft are very small and changing around can be like an Octopus dance quite entertaining if its a girl with a short skirt not so if its some fat guy!You do run the risk of getting completely jammed which I wouldnt moan about if it was the girl with the short skirt :E but would with the fat guy:{

Pace

[mad_jock]

oi I resemble that Pace

[Pace]

MadJock

I know you Scots wear Skirts ;) just the thought of it :eek:

Pace

[xrayalpha]

Microlight pilots have special training so they can even fly standing up in the back seat - useful if the student in the front falls out as they swap places!

Microlight crazy longer version - YouTube

[mad_jock]

Never mind skirts there would be a distinct chance of a scottish pilot dropping thier guts half way through the swap while thier arse was on the other person in the front shoulder. Then disolving into giggles as that said person starts trying to give them a dead leg.

[Dan the weegie]

I know you Scots wear Skirts just the thought of it

:eek:

Image burning my brain of MJ in a kilt trying to pull his way across in 172 shouting
BADGER!

[fireflybob]

It is better to land and pull off the runway, changeover and takeoff again not just from a simplicity angle but also because the new pilot does a complete flight rather than being dropped in it!

Pace, depends on what type of training you are conducting. I agree that for ab initio it may not be a good idea.

However for advance students on Instrument Rating training I see no reason why not. We used to take 3 students in the Twin Comanche/Seneca - first student would fly airways to XXX do some approaches to touch and go/go around, 2nd student does airborne change to do approaches at XXX, 3rd student does airborne change to do approaches at XXX and then airways back to base.

Given that base at that time had no ILS this meant all 3 students got to do at least one ILS each (usually more) and also a non precision approach.

The main challenge then (and I suspect now) is that if you landed to do a crew change it was challenging getting back into the system again to restart training and often resulted in delay at the holding point.

For advanced students who, within the airline context, have to get used to airborne changes, this was good training to prepare them for the future. Also they had the benefit of watching their fellow trainees perform and also learn from the debriefs etc.

Of course airborne changes have to be briefed and correctly managed but if the left hand seat was moved fully rearward and the right hand seat moved forward a tad there was never any problem changing seats.

I suppose if you have never done it before it's like going to the moon (you have to solve two problems:- how to get there and how to get back) but airborne changes in this context have been performed quite safely many times.

As a postscript there is always a risk somebody might fall over the controls when exiting or entering a pilot's seat. Another reason for covering this in training.

[Pace]

Bob

Of course in that context you are right and I know it is a technique used a lot especially in expensive aircraft like twins.
I have done that myself both in training and giving someone a go upfront but having experienced jumping in I also know it takes a bit to get in the groove and put on a different hat to that of a passenger!!!
Its a bit like entering a cinema half way through the film ;)

If you have to experience MJ in a kilt clambering over the top even more unsettling :E Especially if what they say about Scots and Kilts is true.

Pace

[pussyboots]

The info was explicit, a PA28 - FIRST LESSON, swop seats front to back.

[fireflybob]

The info was explicit, a PA28 - FIRST LESSON, swop seats front to back.

pussyboots, thanks for drawing my attention to that - in my enthusiasm to promote the other point of view I overlooked that fact!

I would not agree with this on a Trial Lesson which presumes that the students are new to flying which would carry extra hazards apart from the training aspects of putting somebody in the hot seat,

[flybymike]

I am surprised no one has mentioned potential CofG/balance issues.

[Torque Tonight]

Not much serious training takes place in typical trial lessons which are more a famil or air experience flight. Taking two people and having an airborne crew changes means more airtime for the two studes, cutting a load of taxy and transit time. As long as it is properly briefed there are no downsides at this stage.

A little later when the guys are actually learning startup, taxy, takeoff, transit, RT etc then it has training value. Far beyond that when these things are second nature, for example when training beyond the PPL, there might be more value to a sortie by cutting out unnecessary items and again doing airborne crew changes. Very common in military flying training on certain aircraft types.

Always worth giving the incoming crewmember a couple of minutes in the seat to get his bearings and up to speed with what's going on before he starts aviating.

[Dan the weegie]

I would say quite a lot happens on Trial Lessons, it sets the tone for the attitude that the student has for the rest of their training, should they take it up. It's not something I'd do by choice but never say never.

It is however significantly safer than doing a swap over with the engine still running. There were a few deaths in the last couple of years from engine running changeovers and people falling into spinning props.

If you have to experience MJ in a kilt clambering over the top even more unsettling Especially if what they say about Scots and Kilts is true.


Oh my dear god :uhoh:

[goldeneaglepilot]

Rumour has it that MJ has stopped wearing a kilt - he could not stand the pain when his legs were waxed smooth!!

[Whopity]

No law was broken. He was pilot in command - if the passengers swap seats in cruise (when there's no requirement to wear seat belts), then that's fine.Unless of course it all goes wrong, at which point the PIC could be charged under Article 137 Endangering safety of an aircraft
137 A person must not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an
aircraft, or any person in an aircraft.

[mary meagher]

I heard a story about a French Cessna 172... or was it a Robin? details hazy....but on board were four full size people...

The ENGINE FELL OFF!

They didn't die.

The two in back climbed into the front and having in this way adjusted the centre of gravity, the ensemble managed to glide to earth....

History does not mention how they arranged themselves....

[sevenstrokeroll]

My opinion (CFIIMEIATPMEL,737type, captain major US carrier)...

this was a dumb move...maybe not illegal, but dumb.

As an instructor, even for a DEMO ride, I wanted the student to takeoff, climb, turn, descend and land. Doing exactly what I said of course. and most could do it all with proper coaching from the instructor...

so one guy gets a takeoff, the other a landing? it wasn't a full lesson in my view...just a cheap cop out.


A PA 28 is a great little plane (watch "GOLDFINGER"), but always mention which version of the PA28 please.


Also...I would not have an observer student...the best lessons are instructor and student ...and THAT"s it!. Sure sometimes you take your best girl along for a ride...but I discourage that. some may say it saves money....but I wouldn't do it.

[mad_jock]

Sod all waxing with a kilt on.

And in that respect weegie is worse than me with him being the missing link between homosapien and neanderthal in the back hair deptment. In fact I don't know the reason why he doesn't have the nickname of Chewbacca.

[BillieBob]

I am surprised no one has mentioned potential CofG/balance issues.Probably because, in the particular situation described, there are none.

[treadigraph]

I heard a story about a French Cessna 172... or was it a Robin? details hazy....but on board were four full size people...





Mary, quite true, but actually Miles Messenger G-AJEY in France in 1947. Boulton Paul CTP Lindsay Neale was the pilot whose skill and quick thinking (and willing pax!) saved the day.

[Maoraigh1]

(and willing pax!)
Mother-in-law?

[Halfbaked_Boy]

Apologies for the thread drift in advance...

Wasn't there a situation (maybe read 'urban myth in aviation') involving an aircraft on an air taxi detail where they ended up having to put down in a field, so the pilot asked his passengers (all 4...6... 8... of them...?) to move as far rearward as possible, with some ending up in the luggage area, to ensure he had as much 'rearward authority' during the flare as possible?

Then the story went on to mention how he was stripped of his licence, the deciding factor being that some of his passengers were obviously not wearing seatbelts/harnesses during an emergency landing?

I know you hear so much crap in aviation, but shockingly it's one of those funny industries where a lot of the wild stories either are, or have the potential to be true, so just curious!

[Pace]

Mary, quite true, but actually Miles Messenger G-AJEY in France in 1947. Boulton Paul CTP Lindsay Neale was the pilot whose skill and quick thinking (and willing pax!) saved the day.

This is also true! There was a test pilot doing a flight test on a Canard design aircraft.
The aircraft got into a flat spin and being their only test machine the pilot got out and attempted to put his weight on the canard to break the spin.
He failed and was now too low to parachute out.
The aircraft spun onto a beach the test pilot walked away uninjured and the aircraft suffered so little damage that it was recovered and rebuilt.

Pace

[AC-DC]

Legal? - Yes.
Clever? - No

In the past people were killed doing it.

[Halfbaked_Boy]

People have been killed trying to land, too...

[Big Pistons Forever]

So we have 2 people who have never likely been in a light airplane and you are going to have them climbing over the seats in the tightly confined space of the Pa 28 cabin :confused:

This strikes me as a really really dumb idea. All it takes is for one of them to push the control wheel, kick the instrument panel, hit the door handle, get stuck twisted half way etc etc and you will be deeply regretting doing this :ouch:

I have never done an inflight seat change in a light aircraft and think it is inadvisable under pretty much all conditions.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Halfbaked boy. What a stupid counter argument

People have been killed trying to land, too...

Its all about the degree of risk. To me the risks of trying to swop student pilots on their first ever flight between the front and back of the aeroplane is an avoidable risk. Its a strange enviroment for the student, why spoil the enjoyment of a first flight? Why demonstrate something like this to a student? Or at the very least a potential student, after all it was a trial lesson, hopefully to let the student decide if they were going to continue and learn to fly. Its a bad example of airmanship to the extreme.

[Halfbaked_Boy]

I ain't arguing GEP, I'm providing another input on what is a neutral situation. Landing is inherently more dangerous than teaching a couple of teenagers to swap seats... But which requires more training?

Making a tonne of metal move in such a way that it flies at high speed through the atmosphere, with our delicate fleshy bodies on board, is not the cleverest idea anybody had (evidently), but we made it risk acceptable.

Same applies here, and in fact the major reason we will hear people voicing their opinion that it isn't a good idea is psychological - it's not what people are used to, therefore they will condemn it.

The bottom line here is that nobody on this forum (presumably) was present during the briefing the instructor gave these two young guys. A good rule for 99% of activities on life is the old 'it's only as safe as you make it'. Two mobile, physically able teenagers, briefed very carefully on how to move through a one foot gap without sticking their leg backwards, under the scrutinizing eye of an experienced instructor, makes this whole deal a non-event...

... In my opinion, because we're allowed opinions aren't we GEP ;)

edited to say - For the record, I haven't, and probably will never do this, but my reasons are more along the lines of above posters with regard to training quality/issues. My thoughts above are on the safety aspects only.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Half baked boy, yes we are all entitled to opinions, some of us can debate their thoughts with rational statements. How can it be safer to swop seats in flight than land to change pilots in a PA28?

Equally how can you argue that a landing is anything other than another phase of a planned flight.

Equally I have heard from someone who was present at the pre flight briefing that the instructor cut the briefing short because he thought it was "boring"...... The planned flight was to go to another airfield to do the changeover of students (one flying to the destination, the other flying back) For some reason the instructor decided to do the change over in flight.

The PA28 is a small four seater, any turbulance can have a marked effect, equally any problem with the aircraft during the changeover could have had life threatening consequences, how about the risk of accidentally kicking something whilst accidentally climbing over. It is a manageable risk and in my opinion one not worth taking.

[Cobalt]

the Not Worth Taking statement in GEP's post is the key.

Landing, once flying, is neccessary.

Swapping seats in the air is optional.
Entering / exiting with engine running is optional.

Does the benefit justify taking the risk?

For entering/exiting with engine running, in my mind it is NO. Risk your life for the sake of a minute (the time it takes to re-start the engine after you got in)???? Yes, it is a remote risk, but a minute isn't worth it!

Swapping seats when airborne to save 200-300 pounds (say, an hour of flying)? Hey, why don't you just LAND off one approach, so it only takes 10 minutes to swap, and as a bonus you get to train to actually LAND of the approach, someting you rarely do in IR training but almost always do afterwards...

[Genghis the Engineer]

statement in Gengis' post

I've not previously posted in this thread, nor any other Genghis. Must have been some other feller.

G

[goldeneaglepilot]

Good post Cobalt.

There was a group of pilots who shared Halfbaked boys thoughts about the risk of landing:

http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa438/dh12554/Kamikazee.jpg

[Duckeggblue]

Hmmm ...Just been out to a PA28 trying to work out who put what where when to achieve the seat swap ( & trying not to think too hard about half baked boy's
Delicate fleshy body on board :))

Bit of a struggle to say the least but maybe I'm getting old!
Seems to fall in the category of something that is possible to do but probably shouldn't be encouraged - because if your instructor can do it with you - why shouldn't your do it with your family when you get your PPL? And who's to say whether you have the skill to sort out any resulting problems?

[Halfbaked_Boy]

GEP, let's not get our wires crossed; I agree totally with your key points, namely, the degree of risk. It is absolutely safer to land and swap over (because we're all much better (hopefully!) and have received more training in landing an aeroplane than changing seats in flight).

Without trying to antagonise the issue, and I'll firstly say that comparing this to landing wasn't the best example, I read your thoughts as following... Landing an aeroplane is nothing other than a phase of a planned flight. Why is not changing seats simply the same thing? Because you don't have to do it, right? But you have to land... (Unless you're the gents in the photo above, or one of those crazy meatbomber types!)

Ok then, at massive risk of thread drift, do you mind explaining why a large majority of pilots I come across take their aeroplane into the sky, and totally and needlessly roll it, loop it, spin it, stall it, put it on a knife edge then roll it some more?

There's nothing in the POH that prohibits it, so it's totally legal... But is it safe?

Of course, but only with proper briefing and training... Just like swapping seats in a PA28. I'd even go so far as to say, when taken right back to basics, the former is a hell of a lot more dangerous than the latter, given absolutely no training.

The crux of it is, no training is legally required to do either...

[peterh337]

I don't think you are allowed to roll most GA "spamcan" types. But yes, lots of cowboys do it.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Halfbaked boy.

Ok, then lets assume that the pilot is flying a type that is rated for aerobatics, only an idiot will go and try and teach themselves aerobatics, whilst in the UK in theory anyone can try, most decide that they want to learn properly to avoid endangering themselves and/or the aircraft.

You will remember from your basic training hassell checks?

H- Height Sufficient to recover by
3000ft (900M) AGL
A-Airframe Flaps and landing gear UP
S-Security Hatches closed and locked,
Harnesses secure, no loose articles
E-Engine Ts and Ps, fuel, carb heat, throttle and pitch as required
L-Location Clear of controlled airspace cloud and built-up areas
L-Lookout Clearing turns
So looking at the check list we look at the "S-Security" check, NO LOOSE ARTICLES. Why is that? Why bother?

If you had been instructed to do any aerobatics you would have had it drilled into you that even involved checking that you had nothing in your pockets that could come loose during aerobatics, anything loose has the potential to jam controls or cause injury.

We have all been flying when an unexpected pocket of air caused the aircraft to drop, why is that not going to happen when someone is unstrapped and trying to climb from one seat to another in a PA28, which of course is a lot tighter on space than a 747.

With respect to aerobatics a lot of people enjoy aerobatics and go out to learn how to improve their raw flying skills by learning how to do aerobatics properly. The same as some people enjoy touring or flying a taildragger.

In my opinion self taught aerobatics is likely to result in death....

Back onto the thread its all about recognising the risk and managing it to a sensible level. In this case its about a commercially rated instructor placing students at risk, a risk that they may have been totally ignorant to and one they assumed was normal practice, why bother??

[abgd]

In Transylvania, anything goes.

[Pace]

GEP, let's not get our wires crossed; I agree totally with your key points, namely, the degree of risk. It is absolutely safer to land and swap over (because we're all much better (hopefully!) and have received more training in landing an aeroplane than changing seats in flight).

A lot also depends on the aircraft! Try changing around in a Mooney :E
It is better to land pull off the runway and changeover there.

I have changed seats in mid flight in bigger faster aircraft where the changeover is simple but it does take a few minutes to get into gear and change from a passeneger metality to a pilot one.

Seeing an array of guages with frequencies you have not loaded, course indicators you have not set can make things very confusing for maybe even up to 10 15 minutes and even can upset your flow and performance for the remainder of the flight.

I can understand that in advanced training in expensive machinery one student pilot monitors from the back and changes over midflight to take over the second portion but that should be well briefed before and the second pilot should be monitoring every move from the back so that when the changeover occurs the confusion element is kep to a minimum.

Pace

[421C]

GEP, let's not get our wires crossed; I agree totally with your key points, namely, the degree of risk. It is absolutely safer to land and swap over (because we're all much better (hopefully!) and have received more training in landing an aeroplane than changing seats in flight).


Who's to say it's safer? We know nothing about the circumstances specifically, and it seems to me that there would be many scenarios where a swap of this sort would present no meaningful risk. On the other hand, if you look at the accident stats, the arrival, landing, take-off and departure are where most accidents happen. So who is to say that avoiding an extra landing/take-off cycle isn't safer?

Sorry to spoil the natural forum instinct to armchair-police anything of this sort.

[goldeneaglepilot]

421C said:
Who's to say it's safer? We know nothing about the circumstances specifically

421c - Reading the thread does explain the circumstances


The info was explicit, a PA28 - FIRST LESSON, swop seats front to back.

Equally I have heard from someone who was present at the pre flight briefing that the instructor cut the briefing short because he thought it was "boring"...... The planned flight was to go to another airfield to do the changeover of students (one flying to the destination, the other flying back) For some reason the instructor decided to do the change over in flight.

[421C]

I did read the thread. I stand by what I said, but delete my words "We know nothing about the circumstances specifically", that was the wrong choice of words.

[peterh337]

I have had people moving front to back many times, while I was flying. There is nothing inherently wrong with it and if it can be done easily it is far safer than landing and taking off again.

My girlfriend often moves to the back on long trips, where there is more room and she can read or sleep. Or prepare lunch :)

The real problem is that most light planes are a bit too cramped to make it easy. Even the TBM850 (which I have flown LHS) is difficult in this respect; one's legs only just squeeze between the centre console and the seat.

Also the person moving has to be quite "compact" and flexible. Many people are way too obese to be able to move at all. If they tried, they would smash up the headset connections etc. One of the reasons why the internals of the "single door" planes like the PA28 family are often in such poor condition is because heavy people have to climb in awkwardly, putting their weight on the seat backs, standing on the seats, etc.

[pussyboots]

Peter, what a fantastic idea, I presume your aircraft is posh and has lots of room. It must be great to be able for your girlfriend to pop over into the back seat and prepare lunch. Do you join her and leave the plane on autopilot? Is it a cooked lunch?

PS: I presume the autopilot on your plane is better than the one in the Aeroplane movie?

[Cobalt]

Knowing both peterh337 and 421C, I am pretty certain that their landings and take-offs are safer than swapping seats in a PA28, but I accept their challenge (although I am sure there is a bit of a "devil's advocate" in bot of them :)).

And peterh337 only wants to show off by letting us all know how compact and flexible his SO is.:}

In the meantime, have a look at that accident report (G-BKCB (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/dft_avsafety_pdf_025533.pdf), which contains a lot of conjecture about possible inadvertent contol inputs, with speculation almost as bad as sometimes found here). The salient point is that the aircraft took only 4-5 seconds to break up after an inadvertend control input that only lasted 1-2 seconds.

Even with my landings not being the best, I would rather take my chances. Not that I think that an inadvertent control input is LIKELY, but it only takes the chap climbing into the back kicking the control column fully forward to tear the wings off almost immediately if the aircraft is fast enough.

[PH-UKU]

I had two students swap over yesterday in the middle of the flight ..... they both climbed outside the aeroplane .... while we were moving ! And the engine was running ......

How did we do that?

[Cobalt]

No idea - were you training wing-walkers?

[goldeneaglepilot]

No - this is pretty boring, Peter H having his partner climb in the back to make his lunch thats boring. If she had fired up the BBQ climbing over into the back seat that would have been more impressive.

The question of the students changing seats by going outside the aeroplane, again that's old hat. This student goes on further and during a gliding aerobatic trial lesson sold by Wagitt Voucher flights changes aeroplane....

"How We Did It"

[peterh337]

If my gurl was reading this she would be very flattered, though not suprised :)

I think your SO is about the same size as my SO, Cobalt :)

It takes an awfully long time to descend from FL180 and climb back up there again. Probably best part of an hour, all in all. And the whole reason one is at FL180 in the first place is because of icing conditions below. A landing and a climb would not be a good idea at all.

Yes it is a cooked lunch sometimes but not cooked in the plane. We did try a calor gas BBQ in the back of the plane once but they are tricky. You have to get them just right. If the food gets charred, it is carcinogenic, you know. Anyway, a BBQ is a man's job, and I have to be up front to keep an eye on the autopilot (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/kfc225/index.html).

[Cobalt]

Of course the BBQ did not work at FL180, it needs Oxygen, too! Next time, just take an extra bottle and direct the flow onto the coals, it will do wonders! Also keeps the Carbon Monoxide low.

[peterh337]

Ha! That's why the BBQ didn't work. Never thought of that.

Next time I will take a feed off the oxygen cylinder, after the 1st stage regulator. O2 at 20psi ought to be quite effective...

Carbon monoxide should really exist if you run at peak EGT or LOP. Can one run a BBQ LOP?

[goldeneaglepilot]

How silly of me - I forgot about the lack of oxygen and the carbon monoxide risk. I take the oxygen for granted as I have got used to a pressurised aircraft, also the rate of climb - wow, an hour to FL180 and back, I take a sub ten minute climb to FL180 for granted, and can still see full power.

Good job I did not try the BBQ - some bacon in flight was tempting!!

[mad_jock]

Peter please don't screw around with 100% O2.

If you don't have the right none return valves etc its more than likely that you will put 100% O2 into your gas canister and it will blow up.

Personally I have done something equally stupid in the past on the ground and more by luck than judgment I got away with it.

It took 24hours and a skip full of water to sort out and I was extremely lucky.

From memory and this is out on a limb here.

I think a LPG bottle is at 2 bar at 20deg which is 30psi ish.

Anyway funny things happen at low pressurise when you try and cook. At FL180 boiling point is down to 75degs or less? so you can't make a decent cup of tea and other funny things happen. Which is one of the reasons they don't cook in space the water boils out of most things before it is cooked and you normally end up with warm charred billatong if your trying to cook meat

[goldeneaglepilot]

MJ, You are about right - hence the need to put small camping cylinders in the freezer before charging them from a room temperature "large" Propane cylinder (ensures a liquid gas charge)

[mad_jock]

Thats another daft thing to do because you don't know how much of the liquid you are getting into the one being filled. You need to invert the supply cylinder then fill the reception cylinder with a U bend in the supply hose while it sits on a set of scales until you get the right amount. Then that doesn't work very well with the consumer bottles because they have a spear to try and stop the liquid getting out the valve because the valve seals arn't designed to handle liquid hydrocarbons.

And even then if you have opened the recieving cylinder and air has got into it or you haven't flushed out you lines. As you fill it you may get a bang when the partial pressure of the O2 in the receptical goes up to high enough level to flash burn. This might not occur until the cylinder has sat in the sun a bit or been stuck in the back of your car for a period.

They arn't filled to the top maybe only half full and then if you fill it then throw it in the back of the car it will then heat up and there will be no room for expansion. I think they are rated up to 20 bar at 50 deg C if there isn't enough volume to compress sitting ontop of the liquid its quite easy for them to explode (not in the burning way but like a balloon)

All the ratings are lots of 2's from memory

[goldeneaglepilot]

Your right - which is why when we refilled cannisters we always weighed them

[mad_jock]

I hope you flush your lines and have another tap just before the filler attachment.

I suppose you could just open them outside for a min the right way up and the LPG vapourising would flush any light gas out.

But the whole thought of having Butane in an aircraft gives me the shivers. There have been enough boats gone up with leaks, then add in having O2 kicking around as well.

And I wouldn't like to place bets on what would happen if you played o2 over the fat on a bacon butty. Could make for an interesting mouth full.

[barne_as]

I remember when I was doing my training, on occasions, my instructor used to tune the adf into Virgin to listen to music as they "were bored". Needless to say, I stopped paying my money for his boredom and finished training with someone else.

[bartonflyer]

Anyone remember John Koller (Liverpool based) - he did my and another in our group's IR renewals a couple of times in our Cherokee6 - To save time and landing fees at LPL he'd have us do an in-flight changeover - NOW John was a BIG guy and for balance in the 6 with three on board the third one sits in the back row
It was challenging :D

[FullWings]

When I did my ATPL training years ago, I'd say about 50% of the instructional flights involved swapping seats front/rear between students. It was really useful as the ratio of taxiing, power checks, waiting, etc. to actual aviation was better, plus you got to see much more in the way of demonstrations and other guys' good flying and/or mistakes. It also enabled two or three people to do a long cross-country to different/unfamiliar airfields with varied approach facilities and terrain/weather without burning too many hours in the process.

If plied with drink, I might tell a story about landing in a Cub in a different seat to the one used for takeoff. No way would I admit to any such practices on a public forum. ;)

[Dark Star]

The opening post does not state whether this changeover was briefed and practiced on the ground before attempting it in flight.

Personally it is not something I would do in a PA 28 anyway - (see the link to the report on G-BKCB in post 51 above)

[pussyboots]

whether this changeover was briefed and practiced on the ground before attempting it in flight

No - it was not, it was a decision made in flight by the instructor. The flight should have been to another airfield where the swop over of students should have happened. In other words on sit as the student on the outbound leg and then swop on the ground and the other act as the student on the return leg.

[FullWings]

Is this behaviour something that most of us wouldn't indulge in with non-pilots? Probably. Is it incredibly dangerous compared with everything else associated with light aviation or life in general? Probably not.

I'd be much more concerned with a report detailing a habit of low, slow and shallow final turns than a seat swap in mid-air, IMHO.