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!)?
And here comes the "authority principle", which is worth less than used toilet paper when confronted with legal issues. I wonder, when will the "ad hominems" start?
You're all making stuff up to suit your ideas. The law does not distinguish between "flying straight and level" or any other phase of flight. It also does not distinguish between "flying solo" or "flying next to bloody Charles Lindbergh". The law clearly states that you cannot act as pilot of an aircraft without holding the appropriate license. Manipulating the flight controls is acting as pilot, it doesn't matter whether you're just "flying straight and level" or "competing at the world's aerobatic championship", whomever is flying the plane is the pilot, period.
I'm really outta hear.
P.S. The worst bullshit I ever heard often came from "very experience pilots", BTW.
UK ANO August 2012 Part 6 Article 50 Quote: 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. Note it doesn't say "act as the Pilot in Command" it says "act as a Pilot"
Article 50 says "Pilot", but the CAA explanatory letter states "this term is defined in article 255(1)".
Article 255(1) does not have a definition of "Pilot" - only "Pilot in Command":
'Pilot in command' means a person who for the time being is in charge of the piloting of an aircraft without being under the direction of any other pilot in the aircraft;
Even though Article 50 paragraph 1 states "Pilot", Article 50A paragraph 1 states "a person must not act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft to which this paragraph applies without holding an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under this Order." Para 50 talks about EASA aircraft, and 50A is non-EASA aircraft, but why does one talk about pilot and the other flight crew. Do the CAA think that only members of the flight crew can be classed as pilots - and not passengers?
Definition of Flight Crew in ANO:
'Flight crew' in relation to an aircraft means those members of the crew of the aircraft who respectively undertake to act as pilot, flight navigator, flight engineer and flight radiotelephony operator of the aircraft;
So the flight crew are involved in all those aspects of flying, and not just the controls, meaning that passengers are not classed as flight crew, and so can legally take the controls.
There is a UK CAA safety leaflet which states that if a pax becomes air sick you should get them to fly it as this often reduces the sick feeling.
Hi Jock, save us all the searching, any idea which safety sense that is in?
I have NEVER allowed a non pilot to handle the controls, it's taken two years to teach my wife to work the transponder and GNS450.
I would like to allow certain pax, who have some experience, to handle the controls under benign circumstances but there's no point in that unless they can tell people they did it.... which will get me strung up...or will it?
Dg800, you may want to tone down your insults, as it's doing nothing for your credibility.
I had missed the word respectively. There is a nice way to tell me, but you ignored that
While you are talking about definitions you may like to look up the definition of pilot (seeing as the CAA don't like to provide one in the ANO): a person duly qualified to operate an airplane (Pilot | Define Pilot at Dictionary.com
I would definitely not say that a passenger is a pilot based on that definition.
Once a couple thousand feet in the air, I commonly give passengers the controls. In busy airspace, it frees me up for navigation and ATC.
Doing intros in gliders, same deal.
And yes, I monitor very carefully.
Some selection is necessary. My nephew with cerebral palsy cannot control his movements and simply cannot be in any seat with access to the controls.
That said, our club commonly operates Freedom Flights for the disabled. They have to be lowered in with a hoist, but a number can fly the glider through aggressive maneuvers. That said, it's the senior instructors who fly them.
There is the type who takes a firm grip who needs to be admonished that a light touch is the way to go.
In gliders, you really do need a careful preflight briefing about keeping hands, legs and feet well clear during takeoff and landing when full control movement is often needed.
The regulatory environment varies with jurisdiction and with time; so what was once common practice may become proscribed.
You have a very different interpretation of the rules than that put forward by the more Northern and Western based people. It would be useful to understand a bit of your background and reasons for your assertion. For instance you may be a Milan based aviation lawyer familiar with the detail of historic national and EASA law and judgements, on the other hand you may be a newspaper reporter trolling for a story.
I have no idea what laws might exsist in Italy on the subject, and given some recent criminal convictions or ATC, Pilots, and Geologists - I can imagine the law is quite different to the rest of Europe.
Certainly in the US and UK (the two areas I am quite familiar with) it is routine for officially sanctioned flights to let the passenger have a go (now many of these will be with a civilian instructor, but some are with just a CPL or military pilot or in certain cases a PPL).
Most 'official' events have some aspect of commerciality (like a trial flight or an Air Experience flight) and hence of some regulation that will typically require a CPL.
In the UK and the US, the legal logic is very clear. 1 - An aircraft has a certain specified required crew complement 2 - All required crew members must be appropriately licenced rated and current 3 - There is an individual who is the pilot in command who is responsible for the legal compliance and safety of the flight. In the normal course of events this role can be transferred amongst the qualified individuals by mutual agreement (and sometimes by legal precedent - such as the case of an ATPL allowing a PPL owner to land at the wrong (restricted in the actual case) airport) 4 - everyone on board who is not required crew (other than the legal transfer referenced above) is a passenger regardless of the ratings/licences held
None of the above says if passengers are or are not allowed to operate any aspect of the aircraft. Even in Italy I would expect the passenger to be allowed to operate the overhead lights, doors, air vents etc. Within the Anglo Saxon tradition, something must be explicitly prohibited for it to not be allowed. My understanding of some other legal traditions is closer to only specifically defined acts are legal all others are prohibited.
Thus we end with the position in the UK and US that the PIC is overall accountable for the safe flight, all required crew members must be licensed, but no restriction on who can operate which bit of the aircraft. So you are right, a Pilot could jump into the right seat of a single control aircraft and let a total novice fly the aircraft from the left seat. The novice would not be breaking the law (he is not acting as a required crew member without a licence, the required crew is in the aircraft and in command). Of course the pilot is guilty of reckless endangerment as he has chosen to place himself in a location where he is unable to exercise his PIC responsibilities to ensure the safe and legal (in terms of navigation, compliance with clearances etc) execution of the flight.
You won't be strung up far from it. You should see all the airline pilots boasting about how good a landing there 10 year old kid has just done in the tail dragger at some of the festivals. And to be fair a number of them the landing looked better than there dad/mum doing it.
There used to be a bit in the AOPA course book for the companion course which told them to practise in the cruise but only practise T/O and landings with a instructor.
We have an Italian who admits he may not have full Level 6.
Now you're making stuff up about me too. My English is probably way better than yours, BTW. By the way, congratulations on being the first to bring out the usual, trite ad hominem. This forum is a ******* waste of time, I'm out of here for good. You clowns enjoy yourself in your little insular world.