Giving passengers control
Originally Posted by Dg800
Quote:
If operating the ailerons and stabiliser is sufficient to make you part of the flight crew
If operating the ailerons and stabiliser is sufficient to make you part of the flight crew
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holding a licence.
Let me spell it out for you: manipulating the flight controls means acting as part of the flight crew, and to do that legally regulations clearly and unambiguously state that you must hold a valid and appropriate license.
I'm outta here, this is getting too silly and quite pointless.
Last edited by Dg800; 19th Dec 2012 at 12:43.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Signing the tech log and being the pilot in command which allows you to delegate duties as you feel fit.
One of which could be read the map for me please or keep he wings level while I work out where the
we are.
One of which could be read the map for me please or keep he wings level while I work out where the
we are.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing in the law that says it is illegal to let a passenger manipulate the controls, you as
pilot in command are still the one responsible for the safe operation of the flight.
pilot in command are still the one responsible for the safe operation of the flight.
UK ANO August 2012 Part 6 Article 50
50 (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a person must not act as a pilot of an EASA aircraft that is registered in the United Kingdom without holding an appropriate licence granted, converted or rendered valid under the EASA Aircrew Regulation.
I personally don't see anything wrong with a pilot, who is comfortable so doing, allowing a passenger
to try out the controls - but one wonders what the intention of the above wording was.
Last edited by Level Attitude; 19th Dec 2012 at 12:49.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
then you could legally fly any plane (even the big iron) as not having a license does not make you part of the flight crew?
But if the legal flight crew requirements have been satisfied, then it's perfectly legal for you, as a passenger, to manipulate the controls. It doesn't absolve the flight crew from staying legally responsible so it would be, well, a little careless of them to leave the flight deck and go take a nap for instance.
Have to say that letting passengers having a go at the controls is something that is typically forbidden by SOPs of large airlines though. And by law passengers are not allowed to enter the flight deck of a commercial airliner in the first place.
A friend of mine had a passenger doing rolls in his RV recently on her first flight
Last edited by BackPacker; 19th Dec 2012 at 12:52.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An aircraft needs to be flown by a legal crew. So you can't fly an aircraft without a licence (except on a solo endorsement) on your own.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Duxford
Age: 45
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a low hour PPL so my opinion isn't necessarily the most relevant, however I also have a good understanding of civil law.
My personal interpretation of the ANO quote above is that being part of the 'flight crew' means a qualified person who is required as part of the crew to operate the aircraft legally, i.e. if P2 is required, or a navigator etc. Being a passenger and manipulating the controls doesn't make you part of the flight crew.
My understanding is therefore that it is not in breach of any law to allow a passenger to do so, just that it remains the PIC's responsibility to ensure the aircraft remains safe at all times.
My father manipulated the controls of my plane over the weekend for a fairly lengthy amount of time. Only when we were at a sensible height and away from traffic, circuits etc. He doesn't hold any qualifications, although admittedly has significantly more hours than me even though their age would be measured in decades, not years!
My personal interpretation of the ANO quote above is that being part of the 'flight crew' means a qualified person who is required as part of the crew to operate the aircraft legally, i.e. if P2 is required, or a navigator etc. Being a passenger and manipulating the controls doesn't make you part of the flight crew.
My understanding is therefore that it is not in breach of any law to allow a passenger to do so, just that it remains the PIC's responsibility to ensure the aircraft remains safe at all times.
My father manipulated the controls of my plane over the weekend for a fairly lengthy amount of time. Only when we were at a sensible height and away from traffic, circuits etc. He doesn't hold any qualifications, although admittedly has significantly more hours than me even though their age would be measured in decades, not years!
Last edited by Ds3; 19th Dec 2012 at 13:01.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: scotland
Age: 43
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my view is let the pax have the controls for a few minutes, as long as the aircraft is not put in any danger there is no harm in letting them have a feel for what flying is all about. It's no worse than putting the aircraft in the hands of the A/P.
To those who say no they should not be in control, do you make your pax fly in the back or if you do let them in the front do you handcuff them so that they cant touch anything?
This is one of many reasons why GA is going the way of the dodo, people take the interpretation of the rules to the extreme because they are scared of what might go wrong, even though GA flying is safe.
Flying is meant to be fun, not a chore.
fats
To those who say no they should not be in control, do you make your pax fly in the back or if you do let them in the front do you handcuff them so that they cant touch anything?
This is one of many reasons why GA is going the way of the dodo, people take the interpretation of the rules to the extreme because they are scared of what might go wrong, even though GA flying is safe.
Flying is meant to be fun, not a chore.
fats
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope.
He just has a different out look on the rules or shall we say lack of them about giving a pax a pole.
In alot of cases the flying of the aircraft isn't the hard bit straight and level.
Its the navigating and talking on the RT which is the hard bit.
Most would not complain about the pax doing the Navigating and the PIC checking it. All merry hell lets loose when its suggested that the pax does the easy bit flying the plane while the PIC does the technical bit working out where they are and where they are going.
He just has a different out look on the rules or shall we say lack of them about giving a pax a pole.
In alot of cases the flying of the aircraft isn't the hard bit straight and level.
Its the navigating and talking on the RT which is the hard bit.
Most would not complain about the pax doing the Navigating and the PIC checking it. All merry hell lets loose when its suggested that the pax does the easy bit flying the plane while the PIC does the technical bit working out where they are and where they are going.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be alot of discussion on whether someone is
part of the "Operating Crew" or part of the "Flight Crew!".
This is due to DG800's quote of Article 50 from the ANO 2009.
This is out of date
Article 50 from ANO 2012 is different
part of the "Operating Crew" or part of the "Flight Crew!".
This is due to DG800's quote of Article 50 from the ANO 2009.
This is out of date
Article 50 from ANO 2012 is different
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At our place which is run as a pretty tight ship for a number of reasons pax aren't allowed to handle the controls below 500'.
Personally I let pax fly straight and level if they want to. I tend to fly with the same group of people, some of whom are not pilots but who aren't strangers to aircraft; some have clocked up a considerable amount of time in light a/c. On a long leg it gives them something to do and it gives me a rest. And no, I don't mean I go to sleep. They can all fly a heading and altitude as well as I can, it's not rocket science.
Personally I let pax fly straight and level if they want to. I tend to fly with the same group of people, some of whom are not pilots but who aren't strangers to aircraft; some have clocked up a considerable amount of time in light a/c. On a long leg it gives them something to do and it gives me a rest. And no, I don't mean I go to sleep. They can all fly a heading and altitude as well as I can, it's not rocket science.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: FL 410
Age: 28
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However I have noticed a few people who have their PPL (no other ratings) and are openly admitting to letting people know that they gave a passenger control of the aircraft.
maybe, the guys who took control are INSTRUCTORS
maybe, the guys who took control are INSTRUCTORS
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it uniquely British, this obsession with crossing the 'i's and dotting the 't's. If I let one of my mates who probably has as many hours as me take over for a leg at 5,000' straight and level the bloody thing isn't going to explode is it.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My personal interpretation of the ANO quote above is that being part of the 'flight crew' means a qualified person who is required as part of the crew to operate the aircraft legally, i.e. if P2 is required, or a navigator etc. Being a passenger and manipulating the controls doesn't make you part of the flight crew.
My interpretation will only allow properly qualified and trained (and current) personnel performing any and all functions required to safely complete the flight.
Guess which interpretation the judge would lean towards (assuming the old wording were still in effect)?
You can only interpret up to a certain point before it all gets too silly.
To those complaining that "this is all too strict, where is aviation going to these days?": the OP was explicitly asking about the legality of this since he got several conflicting opinions on it, so I'm merely (and actually, for a change) directly addressing his question. If you want, you can start your own thread titled "Do you think it's OK to give passengers control of the aircraft even if it might be illegal?"
Last edited by Dg800; 19th Dec 2012 at 13:21.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Duxford
Age: 45
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't it strike you as a little strange that you're the only person holding this view on a forum full of very experienced pilots (not classing myself as one!)?
My interpretation doesn't mean that at all. As I said, it's the PIC's responsibility to ensure the safety of the aircraft at all times. Letting an unqualified person take off and land whilst they are dozing would not be doing so. Where as letting an unqualified person fly straight and level whilst they monitor traffic, controls and instruments would be.
I spend a lot of time in court, albeit not aviation related, and have a very good understanding of how decisions are reached. A judge will not 'lean' in any direction, they will take the literal meaning of the rules as they are written.
In a situation where a non-qualified pax was flying and subsequently crashed a plane, the judge would decide whether the PIC had maintained the safety of the plane or not (most likely not, if the pax had crashed it) and base the outcome on that fact alone.
My interpretation doesn't mean that at all. As I said, it's the PIC's responsibility to ensure the safety of the aircraft at all times. Letting an unqualified person take off and land whilst they are dozing would not be doing so. Where as letting an unqualified person fly straight and level whilst they monitor traffic, controls and instruments would be.
I spend a lot of time in court, albeit not aviation related, and have a very good understanding of how decisions are reached. A judge will not 'lean' in any direction, they will take the literal meaning of the rules as they are written.
In a situation where a non-qualified pax was flying and subsequently crashed a plane, the judge would decide whether the PIC had maintained the safety of the plane or not (most likely not, if the pax had crashed it) and base the outcome on that fact alone.
Last edited by Ds3; 19th Dec 2012 at 13:29.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never read such a load of bollox as some posts on here. It is perfectly legal for a passenger to operate the flying controls under the supervision of a qualified pilot.
Such an unqualified operator is not in any way acting as flight crew - the qualified pilot remains the legal flight crew at all times and it is up to that qualified pilot to take back control at any time he is not happy with the passenger flying it.
I would proffer a word of caution, though, if you don't know the passenger. many years ago I took 3 girls flying in the Chipmunk (one at a time, of course, in the rear seat). The first two went fine, and each had a go on the stick. The 3rd was noticably more nervous (hence her going last I guess).
As with the first two I let her try the (sensitive, in the Chippy) stick while I followed her through retaining a light hold on the stick in the front cockpit.
She whacked the stick right over before I could stop her, paniced. and screamed and held on with a vice-like grip as we rolled almost inverted. She was easily overpowered and I soon had us staright and level, but if it had been a beefy bloke it might have had a different outcome.
Such an unqualified operator is not in any way acting as flight crew - the qualified pilot remains the legal flight crew at all times and it is up to that qualified pilot to take back control at any time he is not happy with the passenger flying it.
I would proffer a word of caution, though, if you don't know the passenger. many years ago I took 3 girls flying in the Chipmunk (one at a time, of course, in the rear seat). The first two went fine, and each had a go on the stick. The 3rd was noticably more nervous (hence her going last I guess).
As with the first two I let her try the (sensitive, in the Chippy) stick while I followed her through retaining a light hold on the stick in the front cockpit.
She whacked the stick right over before I could stop her, paniced. and screamed and held on with a vice-like grip as we rolled almost inverted. She was easily overpowered and I soon had us staright and level, but if it had been a beefy bloke it might have had a different outcome.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminds me of a similar incident in a two seat glider on the launch, sadly with fatal results for both occupants. The instructor hadn't given over control either. One of the chances you take in a twin stick tandem aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
She whacked the stick right over before I could stop her,
During the ground briefing I tell my passengers that only very small movements are required. Not like a PlayStation at all. In the air I first let them feel me moving the controls, and only then do they get the controls. With my hands very near and initially blocking all excess movement.
Only when they've shown that they can restrain themselves will I let my hands wander further from the stick. But never in a position that I cannot reach the controls quickly, and I also keep my feet on the rudder pedals at all times.
Talking about which, when flying with children make sure they can't reach the rudder pedals, OR that their seat is so close to the rudder pedals that they cannot extend their knees fully and "lock" the pedals. And in the latter case, check they don't have their feet on the brakes when landing.