Some time after the flight, Pilot 2
stated that he had become aware that the group policy
was “an incorrect interpretation of the ANO” and that,
with the exception of the landing he demonstrated, he
was neither handling pilot nor PIC during the flight.
So the pilot 2 know that pilot 1 could not carry him as a passenger, so the only what that they could be onboard that flight was if they were in command of the flight.
Pilot 2 knew that club rules required them to operate as the commander of the aircraft.
The only way that they were on board was a pilot in command.
Yet *after* the accident they tried to worm their way out of any responsibility by claiming that they were not the pilot in command (except possibly when demonstrating a landing).
Not sure that I'd every want to fly with them. Man up and take your responsibility.
Originally Posted by AAIB Quoting ANO
‘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’
Note it doesn't mention who's handling the controls.
Originally Posted by AAIB Quoting ANO
‘The holder may not fly as pilot in command of
such an aeroplane carrying passengers unless
within the preceding 90 days the holder has made
at least three take-offs and three landings as the
sole manipulator of the controls of an aeroplane
of the same type or class;….’
No mention of an instructor there.
Originally Posted by AAIB Quoting CAA
‘The aircraft was certificated for single pilot
operation and therefore the only person who
can be a member of the flight crew in addition
to the handling pilot is a flying instructor who is
instructing or supervising the handling pilot. A
person who is not a flying instructor and not the
handling pilot would be a passenger.
The CAA have not quoted any rule here to confirm their 'opinion'. What makes that person handling the aircraft the pilot in command? If that were the case then a terrorist taking over the controls or an aircraft would become the pilot in command.
The CAA have made a statement but given no reason why a second person on board who isn't an instructor can not be the pilot in command. It's very unlike them not to quote a rule when making a statement which makes me thing that this comment was not given by someone senior.
Originally Posted by AAIB Quoting CAA
A pilot wishing to regain his/her 90-day currency
to be entitled to carry passengers must complete at
least three take-offs and three landings as the sole
manipulator of the controls. These manoeuvres
must be flown either solo or under the supervision
of a flying instructor as a passenger cannot be
carried until the currency is regained.
Again saying so doesn't make it true. They have given no legal reference for their statement that an instructor is required. Clearly the out of currency pilot can not be the pilot in command, but they have given no reason why they can't be a passenger.
The rationale behind this rule is that a flying
instructor has been trained to fly an aircraft from
either seat and to know when to intervene if the
pilot under instruction or supervision appears to
be struggling to handle the aircraft safely. An
instructor is also aware that he or she remains
pilot in command during an instructional flight.’
This is firmly in the area of opinion. This rule was originally written by ICAO. How does this individual in the CAA know what ICAO's rationale was?
If their opinion that the rationale was so that an instructor could intervene if the pilot was struggling was correct then why is the pilot allowed to fly without an instructor? I would suggest (and it's only my opinion as much as that was the CAA person's opinion) that the rationale behind the rule is that an unwitting passenger is not subject to the dangers of flying with a pilot who hasn't flown recently. But I don't know what was in ICAO's mind any more than this CAA person does.
Who among us has ever seen the CAA write three paragraphs of legal interpretation without quoting one legal reference?
In order to become the sole manipulator for the purposes of the exercise, you must be either PIC or Dual and unless the other pilot is an instructor, they automatically become a passenger whilst you manipulate the controls for the purpose of recency, and if you are outside 90 days then you are illegal! Plain simple and unambiguous.
Why do they automatically become a passenger? Why don't they retain their pilot in command status? What makes someone handling the controls of the aircraft a pilot in command?