Passengers handling the controls [Archive]

FlyingForFun

15th Dec 2003, 17:37

If Lucifer is correct, then I'll wait for BEagle to post and prove me wrong. But when I've tried to find something similar myself, I've always come up with a complete blank. And I've taken the fact that nothing tells me that it's illegal to mean that it's legal.

(Purr - it is very common for pilots to hand the controls to their passengers, if the passengers are interested. My own rules for doing so are that I want to see the passenger comfortable with the sensations associated with flying, I want to be away from controlled and busy airspace, I want to be a safe distance from the ground, cloud, and anything that could even broadly be described as "weather", and I want to be totally confident about my current position. Only then will I say "do you fancy having a go?" And I never mention this to a passenger beforehand - there are so many reasons that it might not happen that if I mention it before the flight the passenger may well be disappointed if I decide not to let it happen.)

FFF
--------------

Say again s l o w l y

15th Dec 2003, 18:07

I'm afraid that strictly speaking an non-FI CANNOT let someone else have a go on the controls.

It's in here somewhere (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Lasors_Section_A.pdf) but I haven't got time to trawl through for the exact bit at the moment.

It's counted as an instructional flight if a non licenced person uses the controls, if you haven't got an FI rating then you cannot instruct.

bookworm

15th Dec 2003, 20:15

I agree with FFF. I've never seen anything in the ANO that would prohibit a non-crewmember handling the controls under the supervision of a crewmember.

Maybe when SAS has a little more time he'll be able to find the words in the 74 page document quoted that will enlighten us...

Say again s l o w l y

15th Dec 2003, 20:38

2 (a) He shall not fly such an aeroplane for the
purpose of public transport or aerial work
save as hereinafter provided:
(aa) the giving of instruction in flying, if
his licence includes a flying
instructor's rating, class rating
instructor rating, flight instructor
rating or an assistant flying
instructor's rating;

That isn't the best example, but I can't find the phrase I'm lookng for. This all came up in a thread in the Private flying section a while ago.

The definition of instruction is having an unqualified pilot using the controls under the supervision of a qualified pilot. If you don't have an FI rating, then you can't teach.

Lucifer

15th Dec 2003, 21:05

I'll try and have a look for it, but it is unrelated to the licence that is held by the pilot, as it is not instruction. Rather what we should be looking for is the passenger in the other seat handling the controls under supervision.

I have had a look through the LASORS, but cannot find what I am looking for.

Say again s l o w l y

15th Dec 2003, 21:15

I'll e-mail the Belgrano about this, it may take a while for an answer, but as it isn't clear in LASORS a bit of clarification would be nice. I'm pretty certain I'm correct in this, but nothing like hearing it from the horses mouth.

Genghis, with all your CAA contacts could you get an answer any quicker than the rest of us?

FlyingForFun

15th Dec 2003, 21:16

SAS,

The part that you quoted is not at all relevant, I'm afraid. The section in question relates to the privileges of a PPL(A). Paragraph 1 gives a PPL(A) holder the right to fly an aircraft for which he holds the appropriate type- or class-rating. Paragraph 2, the one which you've quoted, then states that this right does not apply to Public Transport or Aerial Work (other than instructing, which counts as aerial work for the purpose of some rules, but not for this one).

If I let my passenger take the controls, this is not a public transport flight. It is also not an aerial flight. (As you rightly point out, it can't be an instructional flight if I don't hold an instructor rating.) Therefore, the flight is not disallowed by this rule.

FFF
---------------

Say again s l o w l y

15th Dec 2003, 21:29

FFF, you are correct and I'm getting a bit peeved that I can't find the relevant law on this.

I've emailed the CAA and hopefully should get a clarification by 2006. Until then I'll have another look and see what I can find, if anything!

bookworm

15th Dec 2003, 22:46

The structure of the flight crew licensing law in the ANO looks like this:

Art 20 requires an aircraft to have a flight crew numbering at least the minimum required by its C of A.

Art 21(1) requires the members of the flight crew to be licensed, except in certain circumstances decribed in (2).

Art 22 gives the CAA the power to issue (and renew etc.) UK/JAA licences in accordance with Schedule 8 which set out the privileges.

None of it refers to who may operate the controls. If you were to take the interpretation that operating the controls would make you a member of the flight crew, then you could only do so with an appropriate licence. But Art 130 defines flight crew as:

‘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;

which lends this interpretation little support.

Art 41(1) may also be relevant, as it requires one pilot to remain "at the controls" throughout the flight. However 41(3) clearly implies that a PNF is considered to be "at the controls".

Genghis the Engineer

15th Dec 2003, 22:55

Genghis, with all your CAA contacts could you get an answer any quicker than the rest of us?

Wrong bit of the CAA I'm afraid, all my contacts are on the certification and FT side - on operational and training matters it takes me as long to get an answer as anybody else.

Also sometimes it's best not to ask a question too directly of CAA, because if you get the wrong answer it can be very difficult to get them to change their minds.

G

BEagle

16th Dec 2003, 04:55

The answer I supplied related to a non-PPL holder who had asked how he could log flight time during which he'd handled the controls with a PPL holding non-FI in the other seat. My answer was "As a passenger". My private thoughts were "and probably as an illegal one at that!"..........

Chuck Ellsworth

16th Dec 2003, 05:11

I don't understand the problem.

If my Grandmother is sitting in the other seat of a light airplane and wants to feel what the controls do, what is the problem?

And who is going to give a damn if she does?

Sometimes the discussions seem to get rather strange here. :confused:

S-Works

16th Dec 2003, 05:18

Chuck, Its the stuffy Bitish respect for rules and regulations, you have seen how we like to stand in queues!

You know how a PPL could not possibly let mum or dad have a go at straight and level becuase he is incapable of seing if a mistake is going to be made unless he has:

a) done the ATPL exams
B) the FI rating
c) sat in the right seat of a 152 for 3000hrs while waiting for the jet job

and of course don't forget being a "frozen" airline pilot!

The brits do like to collect "badges"!!!!

Kingy

16th Dec 2003, 05:30

I'm with Chuck and FFF on this - the pilot has all the responsibility for the flight, if anything goes wrong the blame falls squarely on his/her shoulders.

I had my first go when I was a kid and those early memories are still with me today.

Only today I was flying with a friend in the Cub, he was having great fun poling us around for a while. It certainly puts nervous pax minds at rest when they realize that the darned thing is stable and not about to drop out the air.

Another favorite of mine is to get her trimmed up nicely, fly hands and feet off, then either climb or descend by both of you either leaning forward or back in the seats...:D

Kingy

Gertrude the Wombat

16th Dec 2003, 05:38

Chuck, Its the stuffy Bitish respect for rules and regulations, you have seen how we like to stand in queues! Whereas, on Vancouver Island not that many months ago ...

"Of course we aren't breaching any low flying rules, we're going to land ... somewhere, eventually."

"Two thousand feet? What's that? We'd get nosebleed if we ever went that high."

"There aren't any rules here, we just do what we like."

"Oh, on a day like this we only fly routes we know, we wouldn't go anywhere we didn't know the way to." [Viz being a few hundred metres, if that, in some directions only, through the thinner patches in the fog. They were flying, too, I saw them, but refused to go with them.]

and so on and so on and so on.

Actually they do have one rule there - when flying through a narrow gap between two mountains I asked whether there was any convention as to which side of the valley one flew on (being used to East Anglia), and it turned out there was.

Sigh. Much more fun than round here.

Mike Cross

16th Dec 2003, 05:43

Article 20 requires the aircraft not to fly unless it has the required crew on board.

Article 41 requires one pilot to remain at the controls at all times.

Article 29 prohibits the giving of instruction in flying by someone without the correct ratings but then says:-
"(2) This article applies to instruction in flying given to any person flying or about to fly a
flying machine or glider for the purpose of becoming qualified for:
(a) the grant of a pilot’s licence; and
(b) the inclusion or variation of any rating in his licence."

Therefore it appears you can teach your granny to fly so long as that instruction is not for one of the purposes above, you remain at the controls, and you are qualified to fly the thing.

Simple really:ok:

Mike

Say again s l o w l y

16th Dec 2003, 07:03

Chuck, I'll definately agree about it not being a problem letting someone have a go whilst you are in flight, but I have benn asked the question on a number of occasions and I'm struggling to find in our myriad of over complex rules whether it is actually allowed or not.

It looks like Mike has answered it, but I'm still not totally convinced about it being within the 'rules' as such. Mind you it's a pretty unenforceable one if it is disallowed!!

Chuck Ellsworth

16th Dec 2003, 07:34

Many years ago in the 1960's when I was flying in the bush in Northern Ontario I used to take my two kids with me in the Beaver on floats when it was a cargo trip.

Both learned to fly the Beaver when they were still so small I had to sit them on cushions, all I had to do was follow with the rudder, when they got bigger they could fly the Beech 18 on floats before they were old enough to start to learn to drive.

If any self serving moron from the Government ever had the nerve to quote the regulations to me about letting someone fly when I was with them I would shove their regulations where they would need an anal scanner to read it.

There that settles that subject. :ok:

Chuck E.

BEagle

16th Dec 2003, 14:59

I agree with you, Chuck. And with Mike Cross.

I too had my first 'go' at the age of 11 in a Piper Carribean; the only point I had was that the person having their 'go' in this way can't log the time as anything other than 'passenger'.

Love the thought of a proctologist having to remove the Air Navigation Order from the head Belgranist's rectum.......:ugh:

Whirlybird

16th Dec 2003, 16:16

If letting someone handle the controls counted as instruction, so, logically, would:

Explaining how the aircraft worked, while you're in flight.

Talking through a take-off, landing etc.

Suggesting an airsick passenger put their hands lightly on the stick/yoke, look out the front, and imagine they're flying (while you still fly it of course).

There may or may not be a rule, but maybe a little common sense is required here? :confused:

IO540

16th Dec 2003, 17:54

This just may be in the old category of "it's fine to do it, but if there is an incident later on that flight, e.g. in the landing, in which a passenger gets hurt, and the passenger "discovers" that he can get some (or more) compensation if the flight was illegal, then he may just say something which assists his case"

Another example is where the PPL cost sharing formula is exceeded. In practice it goes on frequently and it is all but impossible to get caught - unless somebody talks. And you can be sure that a passenger will talk if there is an accident (not related to the actual/promised payment of course).

Never forget that most people, even those you consider your closest friends or relatives, will say things that will assist them if they have been injured, even if doing so drops you in the ***t. Even if the "injury" is purely financial but is substantial enough. The mere threat of a financial penalty is enough to "swing" most people.

So, personally, I play things very straight :O

I agree with Mike C's interpretation though; it seems to take care of itself because it is obvious that when up in the air you can teach someone to fly; it won't be of much use to them though because they can't log it. I suppose you could take somebody through the whole PPL/IR stuff and then send off to Florida to legalise it by flying the 45+35 hours at the lowest possible cost.

I wonder if somebody else can do the radio though... they would need to get the CAA radio license surely, which means passing the RT test? This IS potentially important because if you get a non-flyer to do the radio, your whole airfield will hear it and if somebody has a score to settle (pretty common among flying schools in certain locations :yuk: ) they might do so...

david viewing

16th Dec 2003, 19:01

I really think we ought to be a bit cautious about subjects like this.

The traction engine movement is presently contemplating the possibility that engines might have to be fenced off from the public at rallies after well meaning club officials opened a 'dialogue' with the HSE.

When questions were asked about the use of 123.45 on the Internet, a Notam prohibiting it quickly appeared.

Why not let sleeping dogs lie?

Say again s l o w l y

16th Dec 2003, 19:03

If I'm flying with a student, then they are 'under' my RT licence, same for a solo student. Once you are no longer a 'student' you need your own licence. As a non-FI cannot 'instruct' then strictly speaking they cannot have somebody 'under' their RT licence.

It would be very hard to prove who spoke on the radio however unless it is recorded.

Given the standard of most RT it doesn't seem to matter if you have the certificate or not, it's invariably awful!! "G errr ABCD err umm inside leg measurement etc...........":mad:

David, I can't agree with your comments. If we didn't question how and why we do certain things, then flying will remain static. How on earth could the CAA or whoever tell who handled the controls at a certain point?
Traction engines are big, noisy, dangerous things and I am in no way surprised that they may have to be fenced off. With all the whirling cogs, pistons and other small curious children mashers I'm amazed it hasn't been done already. If the Steam people had taken the lead in this sort of thing, maybe the HSE wouldn't be so draconian.

The only thing that can beat a beauracracy is to try and pre-empt them and any concerns they may have. If you can prove that you are doing everything possible they'll leave you alone. Look at the PFA for example, they took a 'sport' with a dreadful safety record and changed peoples thinking and took the lead. Look what a great organisation it is now without the Belgrano butting in every ten minutes.
Compare this to the contrasting fortunes of the gyro-copter brigade and you'll see how to do it and how not to.

FNG

16th Dec 2003, 19:17

Good common law instincts from FFF: the general rule still holds true that, in the UK, nothing is illegal unless there's a law saying so. You will comb the ANO and related materials in vain for anything which says that you can't let granny wiggle the stick about. Anyone daft enough to let granny try to land the thing has only themselves to blame if things go horribly wrong with insurance etc.

Slightly off thread, but I was depressed by IO540's suggestion that breaches of the rules about costs sharing are commonplace. If this is true and there really are lots of PPLs mean and stupid enough to charge people for flying, I will sign up my granny (unlicensed but enthusiastic wannabe kamikaze pilot) to be their next passenger: "here sonny, I'll take over while you count all those fivers I just gave you"

Mike Cross

16th Dec 2003, 21:12

On the subject of use of the radio by an unlicensed person I refer m'learned friends to Article 21(2) of the ANO (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF) which permits a person to act as a Flight Radiotelephony Operator without holding a licence in certain circumstances.

WRT teaching your granny to fly, Article 64 looks like a good one to get you on if you let her do something stupid.:}

Mike

IO540

16th Dec 2003, 21:56

David

The problem is that from time to time well-meaning people do ask the CAA for a ruling on something. Sometimes the CAA responds but if it is anything controversial it tends to stay silent. If they were more forthcoming, a lot of this speculation would not be necessary. Was 123.45 ever authorised for air-air? It is allocated to some ground units.

But no matter what, some subjects will always be debated because the legislation is a mess.

FNG

"Commonplace" as a % of total flights no, but it happens occassionally in certain circumstances where people ask a PPL to take them somewhere, most likely to an overseas destination.

Mike Cross

Do you mean 21 (2) (a) (ii) (aa)...(ee) ? That appears to say that a PPL can authorise a passenger to do the radio. However (aa) through to (ee) are ALL required but under (bb) the radio operator would be OK if assisting with "safety or navigation".

bookworm

16th Dec 2003, 22:01

If I'm flying with a student, then they are 'under' my RT licence, same for a solo student.

That's not strictly true.

Art 46 (1) The radio station in an aircraft shall not be operated ... by a person duly licensed or otherwise permitted to operate the radio station under that law.

which is why Art 21(2)(a) quoted by Mike Cross is required.

There is no similar prohibition on operating the flight controls. However, 21(2)(c) allows a student undergoing dual instruction to act as pilot. Without it, the student would not be allowed to log the time.

QDMQDMQDM

16th Dec 2003, 22:20

What about using a bottle to pee in and then using your knees to manipulate the controls? Is that legal? Should I get a CAA waiver the next time I need to do it?

QDM

FNG

16th Dec 2003, 22:39

Well that one adds a layer of meaning to the term "handling pilot".

Smutty asides aside, the answer probably depends on how many hours your knees have logged on type. I assume that as a doctor you can medically certify your knees as fit for flight duties.

-------------

PS: IO540, you said "frequent", not commonplace, apologies, but even if frequent that's still a cause for gloom about the venal naughtiness of those who thus disgrace the noble and selfless traditions of the yuk-brown folder

Philip Whiteman

16th Dec 2003, 22:48

On the subject of well-meaning officials asking the authorities for clarification:

The Scouts used to use volunteer PPLs/club machines for flying days, on a cost-sharing basis. Then it ocurred to someone that the pilots' activities just might be construed as 'hire or reward' flights. The Scout movement asked the CAA. The CAA could only agree that such flying might well be regarded as such a thing. One senior CAA man told me that protection of CPLs flying people for money was a factor that could not be neglected.

End of PPLs flying Scouts.

Even before that, the chap organising the whole thing in the South-East told me that my Permit Cub 'might not be seen to be as safe as a C of A machine'. No Scouts ever got to fly in this genuine warplane - and I might add that my personal score of C of A engine/engine instrument failures leading to forced landings is two, v none in several hundred hours of Permit Cub aviation.

Chuck Ellsworth

16th Dec 2003, 22:56

Why are you Brits so paranoid about the rules and regulations?

Here in Canada we now are blessed with " NEW " regulations called CAR's, they are so badly written no one can interpet them so maybe you guys could send your regulators over here for a copy? To many weirdly worded regulations leads to confusion and mass non compliance...so just use common sense that works every time.

Now if you want to enforce something try looking at your illegal immigration problem.

When I step off an airplane in London I think I've landed in the wrong country.

There that should start another argument. :D

Chuck

Tinstaafl

16th Dec 2003, 22:58

Are you trained & endorsed on using the bottle? If it's something you need to use in flight that would make it 'aircraft equipment'. Has it been through a CAA certification & approval process?

Say again s l o w l y

16th Dec 2003, 23:00

So Bookworm, you add the two together and getthey are 'under' my RT licence

Unfortunately Phillip shows, if you are construed as being outside of the rules, then they'll have you if you get found out. It would all be easy if the rules were written so as to have no hidden meaning so that we would all be clear about what we can and shouldn't do, but that would make sense and we can't have any of that!

IO540

16th Dec 2003, 23:11

I think all I was trying to say is that what matters is the insurance company view if there was an incident. Unless you do something truly dreadful, the worst the CAA can do is a fine. An insurance company can do something far worse, and they do it routinely (not paying out on a 3rd party claim is enough to ruin anybody's day).

So perhaps it's better to discreetly put a question to one's insurance broker, not to the CAA who most of the time don't reply at all.

Sadly, people sue very readily today. The school my kids go to is considering banning videos of certain events. It's quite ridiculous but it's the age we live in. It would be unwise to fly boy scouts for anything resembling a reward today - isn't there a rule for PPL cost sharing that the flight must not be advertised outside the club notice board?

Incidentally, I don't think a CPL is enough; you now need an AOC also. I was discussing this very topic with someone who knows the rules the other day; a CPL alone is actually pretty useless.

bookworm

16th Dec 2003, 23:51

I think somebody's accusing me of not being qualified to take the p*ss... :)

gliderman69

17th Dec 2003, 01:00

So I am confused after reading all the above in depth.

Am I allowed to let my passenger to take the controls or not?

;)

Can't see the problem really maybe its all those trees in front of the wood.

Not being paid as an instructor, not giving instruction,

under PIC it says me.....

I have asked people to hold the controls while I looked at a map or drew a line or two, let people feel how the controls work never let them do anything over a 10 degree banked turn.

nuff said....

Would be interested in the official position from the CAA though :D

Say again s l o w l y

17th Dec 2003, 01:13

I think we've fairly conclusively proved that nobody really knows!!

Everyone has an opinion, but an official position may be very different.

Still can't see how they would ever find out if you did let someone have a go surreptitiously.

Keef

17th Dec 2003, 02:32

I've done it ever since I got my PPL; it was done to me long before I got a PPL.

I think two of my basic principles apply:

11. Thou shalt not be found out.

17. It is easier to ask forgiveness than permission, and the matter may never come up anyway.

paulo

17th Dec 2003, 02:41

Keef - are you speaking in a professional capacity? ;)

And what are Nos 12 to 16 ? :E

Evo

17th Dec 2003, 02:49

..and are there more than 17? :)

Flyin'Dutch'

17th Dec 2003, 03:04

Who cares?

:D

FD

BEagle

17th Dec 2003, 03:18

Rule No 1:

Don't ask questions you may not like the answers to!

Suggest that commonsense is the only regulator here. Apart from when some ******** wants to log hours as more than just an interested passenger..........

Saab Dastard

17th Dec 2003, 03:52

concerning passengers handling the controls in a light aircraft - and where to find them?
Genghis, I usually find them in the seats other than the front left one -that I'm in!

Or were you referring to the controls (which are normally mounted in front of the front seats)?

Or is it different in PFA aircraft?

:D

The definitive answer?

SD

PPPPP

17th Dec 2003, 04:26

17. It is easier to ask forgiveness than permission, and the matter may never come up anyway.
I commend this principle to all, it has proved to be a great timesaver over the years, and I've got to do a surprising number of bizarre things by following it!

Genghis the Engineer

17th Dec 2003, 06:40

By and large I was asking about the rules, I'm pretty clear on the points of both where to find the controls, and the passenger(s) most of the time.

G

djk

21st Dec 2003, 18:20

I'm unable to find any ruling prohibiting a passenger having a go with the controls.

I have a feeling that it's permitted "within reason" ie the flight isn't allowed to be logged as an instructional flight, the pilot doesn't accept payment for tuition unless they have an F.I rating. The passenger doesn't operate the radio except to make a mayday call if the pilot is incapacitated.

I remember actually seeing a couple of books either in the Flying Shop catalogue or the Transair catalogue which are purely for the enthuastic passenger, this was a while ago and to be honest I've not really looked again.

As long as the pilot is in command of the aircraft at all times and the passenger is not doing anything that could endanger the safety of the aircraft or the other people in the aircraft, I think it's one of those things that the CAA will probably say "well if you don't do anythng drastically wrong, then we won't say anything".

Had I looked at the forums last week in more detail I could have asked this question as I was at the CAA on Thursday.

Keef

21st Dec 2003, 21:10

Nope, not speaking in any official professional capacity, just offering my own experience for what help it may be. I'm only authorised to speak officially on numbers 1 to 10 (and articles 1 - 39, etc etc).

12 to 16, and 18 to 365 are irrelevant for this purpose, except (since FD says) for:

14: Never trust a professional (especially a Doctor) without getting amateur input. The amateur was usually on the receiving end and has a much more direct opinion.

My younger daughter proved the validity of 14 when she was diagnosed with bone cancer in her left arm. The professionals wanted to cut it off. She argued (being somewhat sentimentally attached to that arm) and ended up at the Middlesex Hospital where they replaced the bone with titanium. She has over 90% use of the arm, can still play piano and flute, drive, etc and is working and earning instead of being a drag on the taxpayer.

Flyin'Dutch'

21st Dec 2003, 21:23

Had I looked at the forums last week in more detail I could have asked this question as I was at the CAA on Thursday.

And what do you really think the answer would be?!?

Q: Dear regulator, can I as a vanilla PPL without any instructing qualification let any passenger take control of my aircraft?

A: Dear PPL of course you can just be careful out there, and if things do go wrong just quote that you did so on my say-so.

People are trying to find reassurances where non exist.

If anyone wants to let a passenger 'have a go' then you do so at your 'peril' and if things go 't*ts up' then it is on your head.

I think that it is safe to say though that the chance that you get 'caught' by the airway police are pretty slim.

FD

djk

21st Dec 2003, 23:50

Flyin'Dutch'

My question would have been more on what the legal situation is with regards to allowing a passenger experience for themselves the effects of the controls, providing that I'm in full command of the aircraft at all times.

I'm sure we've all done it at some stage or have had the opportunity to do so which started us off and gave us our first experience in a light aircraft.

There's no need to resort to sarcasm.

Hence the reason why I believe it's not entirely frowned upon, but as long as it's "within reason" ie the passenger is not doing anything to danger the aircraft, fellow people in the aircraft or those on the ground, and the pilot doesn't display blatant negligence

On no circumstances would I do it and if all goes t*ts up, turn around and say "well Joe Public at the CAA said it was alright to do so.

:rolleyes:

Whipping Boy's SATCO

22nd Dec 2003, 01:51

I must admit that, regardless of the "rules", I occasionally allow my wife, and only my wife, to play with 'it' whilst we're flying. :ooh: :ooh:

englishal

22nd Dec 2003, 01:53

Yea if you were to ask the CAA this question:

a) Its take 60 days for them to get around to replying, then they would apologise for the delay
b)They'd quote a snippit from the ANO stating something along the lines of

"As a PPL you are prohibited from giving flight instruction without an FI rating"

which wouldn't answer the question.

So, its an academic question really. If I teach my Mrs to handle the controls, so if I cark it at the helm, she may stand a surviving, then thats what I would do.....

EA:D

Thirty06

22nd Dec 2003, 03:40

Surely the relevant phrasing is

No person may operate the controls of an aeroplane who does not have an appropriate licence and rating except in the course of receiving flight instruction or at the direction of the pilot in charge.

And.

Any crew member or passenger must obey any reasonable order or instruction from the pilot in charge.

No I don'y know the chapter numbers.

I reckon it's okay to order your passenger to hold the controls. If they do it wothout permission, have them arrested.

Flyin'Dutch'

22nd Dec 2003, 03:53

DJK,

May be it would be easy to liken the scenario that people want an answer for to the following:

Imagine your wife is 39 weeks pregnant and you think you may have to take her to hospital and you think you may well not make it if you stick to the speed limit.

Do you think you can find any copper/judge to give you carte blanche for breaking the speed limit if you ring them and ask?

Methinks not.

FD

Gertrude the Wombat

22nd Dec 2003, 04:50

Imagine your wife is 39 weeks pregnant and you think you may have to take her to hospital and you think you may well not make it if you stick to the speed limit. That one's easy. You count as an ambulance for that particular trip, provided that you don't actually hit anything. If you do hit something you're in trouble, just as an ambulance driver would be. (After all, giving birth in a car at 39 weeks isn't that big a deal, it happens every day; running over someone else's child also unfortunately happens every day but is a big deal.)

Chuck Ellsworth

22nd Dec 2003, 07:07

I can't believe you people are still agonizing over such a stupid subject.

What do they put in your water over there?

On Dec. 16 at 00:34 I posted my thoughts on this subject, for those who are so slaved to rules and regulations, please go back and read what should be done with the rules when they are being quoted to cover this subject.

Chuck

S-Works

22nd Dec 2003, 15:59

I couldn't agree more with you Chuck. I have never seen such a load of tosh in my entire life!

If you want to give your passenger a go on the controls then it is your responsibility to ensure that nothing happens to the aircraft. I have always given my passengers a chance to handle the aircraft and there a few of them that have been on done a PPL.

I went onto learn to fly after I was given a go at the controls and became instantly hooked.

It is little wonder that our sport is a dying one, we are killing it from within by a stupid fascination for rules and making up new ones to make our lives more difficult when none can be found to cater for the latest fixation!

The next thing we will be asking is for clarification on the rules of using a stepladder to fill a 152 or climbing on the strut steps, after all you might fall off the strut and land on your passenger maybe even forcing you to call a Mayday on the way down. How negligent would that be......

:ok:

The Nr Fairy

22nd Dec 2003, 18:19

Whatever the rights and wrongs of letting a passenger have a go at the controls, check this accident report (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_025533.hcsp).

Nothing in there to say if the passenger WAS having a go or not, but the most likely scenario the AAIB can come up with is a control input which led P1 (a qualified pilot, like all of us) to react in such a manner as to lead to the failure of a wing.

Now - still want to let your rellies have a go ?

bar shaker

22nd Dec 2003, 18:57

TNF

That's the most pathetic and ridiculous post I have read on this forum.

I read the report in Flyer about this accident with great interest and I can see nothing in it whatsoever that has any relationship to this topic.

If anything, and IF the AAIB's guess was correct, then letting a passenger have a feel of the controls would have perhaps avoided this. But that's a big IF as the AAIB don't know the cause of the accident, they only know what happened to the airframe and know that replicating the control inputs to create the loadings would require extreme stop to stop movements with the wings at maximum loading.

And you are suggesting that letting a passenger have a feel of the controls, whilst you remain Pilot in Command, could result in this happening?

I also think this one has run its course. There's no definitive ANO text, everyone does it, no one has crashed/been prosecuted and lives have been saved because passengers had a basic understanding of the controls.

Flyin'Dutch'

22nd Dec 2003, 19:07

BS,

You have beaten me to it, but I wholeheartedly second those sentiments.

It seems that some folks seem keen to quote AAIB investigations in an attempt to support their points of view, without taking the effort to ensure that their facts are correct and applicable to the discussion.

FD

The Nr Fairy

23rd Dec 2003, 16:07

bar shaker:

If "that's the most pathetic and ridiculous post" you've read then I humbly suggest that you've not read much else on PPRuNe - there's loads worse out there.

Flyin' Dutch:

Fair enough, I posted a bit of a non-sequitur, without much explanation, but to be honest most of the time the folks out there do their own analysis of posts anyway, and I hardly think this is the worst example of thread creep I've seen. I DO think the accident report is relevant to this discussion, and I think I've got my facts right.

Let's put the legalities aside - there's a sort of consensus developing that no-one really knows 100% for sure if it's prohibited or allowed in the ANO, but as long as you don't let anything stupid happen or no-one finds out you're ok.

Now for some of the practicalities. In the types I fly, the RFM says the duals must be removed if the passenger is not rated. For clarity and completeness, these are R22s and R44s (and the passenger must be helicopter rated, not type rated), which I grant you are a tad more unstable than your average spamcan, but the principle still applies.

I'm assuming our pilot is an average sort of bod, not a test pilot nor recently discovered by anthropologists. The pilot in this accident had 224 hours - not a novice - and he'd flown 7 hours in the last 3 months, with one hour in the last 28 days - that tallies with my sort of currency when I was flying f/w and I think it's about the norm, maybe slightly low, for PPLs (any firmer figures much appreciated).

The aircraft went from straight and level to in flight failure in less than 5 seconds of deviating from straight and level flight. That is quick. You're both right (bar shaker and FD) in that there was no firm cause found. The conclusions paragraph of this particular report states The investigation did not reveal any evidence that the possibility of such a sequence of control inputs had been a deliberate action, or that the manoeuvre could have been induced by any reasonable failure of the auto-pilot or pitch trim system. Thus, the manoeuvre being unintentionally initiated by, possibly, the front right seat occupant grasping the control yoke for support, and completed by the pilot in an attempt to recover the aircraft, could not be dismissed
No other more reliable cause for the accident is given - if there were a conclusive cause, I wouldn't be writing this post. Reading between the AAIB lines, I think the only way it can be read is that IS the most likely cause.

You have grounds perhaps to accuse me of not directly relating a "look mum, we're straight and level and granny's flying the aeroplane" type of scenario to a "oh sh1t, where's the ground gone while I've been looking out the window" sort of scenario, but that's about it.

My point I suppose is - talk about this sort of thing with an instructor before you actually do it. If they don't think it's a good idea, don't even bother. If they agree to it, then brief it first with the instructor as to what you're going to do THEN brief the passenger fully, preferably with the instructor in attendance. When the moment comes if you feel the least bit unhappy, don't bother.

As a pilot develops experience, then fine, expand the envelope. you know if you're happy with the situation and are 110% vigilant at the time the passenger is handling the controls, then the mostly likely outcome is a safe return to earth and a memorable flight. But, to paraphrase the AAIB, "other outcomes should not be dismissed".

Last paragraph. I promise. For my part, until I'm an instructor, I'll not be letting other people pole when I carry them as passengers on a private flight, and if I can remove the duals, then I will.

S-Works

23rd Dec 2003, 17:18

Of course being an Instructor they have all the answers? The moment someone has a FI rating it gives them all the answers? I don't think so, it only comes with experiance and there are many PPLS out there with way more hours and experiance than some of the Instructors I have come accross.

The point I am making is that in the case that TNR Fairy quoates we don't know what went wrong but from the description of the incident I doubt even "super instructor" could have solved the problem in the time it took the aircraft to break up.

I think that particular case was a very bad example and was more an attempt at panic mongering.

I would also agree that I would not want to give the controls of any R22 or R44 that I was flying to a passenger as they are so unstable, but a fixed wing aircraft is stable by its nature.

bar shaker

23rd Dec 2003, 17:53

TNF

Well its irrelevant now as we have even more ridiculous things to enjoy...

if I can remove the duals, then I will.

Mate, I really think you should take up a safer hobby. Something like Cross Stitch, maybe.

Can I be so bold as to suggest a completely different sequence of events? The passenger did not lean back to talk to the rear seat passenger and then pull himself forward again by grabbing the yoke. Instead the inputs were from the newly qualified pilot (albeit with a lot of flying in the year since qualifying) who decided to show his work colleague a negative G move, despite having no aerobatic training.

"Here, watch the pencil float off the dash top"

Va, Yoke full back, hold for a second, yoke full forward.

"Sh1t, where's the wing tip gone?"

Just another hypothesis which is equally invalid when talking about allowing your passenger to experience the controls whilst you remain PIC.

Sorry if my dig seems personal but I see no need to sensationalise this debate with irrelevant AAIB reports. Now if you could show me an AAIB report which stated that the Passenger In Command caused the accident I may sit up and listen.

Chuck Ellsworth

23rd Dec 2003, 23:44

I am so thankful to be able to read this forum.

I could not sleep all night worrying about the high risk I have exposed myself to all these years by letting non licensed people steer the airplanes and helicopters that I have flown for a living. ( I have even let non licensed pilots steer an R22 on floats...oh my God what was I thinking? )

Thank God I read the forum this morning, I am on the way to our airport to receive advice and training from a certified flight instructor, its never to late to correct bad habits and dangerous thinking.

Now I just need one more bit of advice.

There are two flight schools here and both schools have brand new very low time instructors on duty, I am not sure which instructor has the most experience, should I just flip a coin?

Or should I blindly just walk up to the first one I meet and rest assured that everything will be wonderful now that I have a flight instructor approved by Transport Canada to fine tune my decision making?

Chuck

Tiger_ Moth

24th Dec 2003, 01:30

I can't believe this has gone on for 5 pages. The simple answer is "yes", passengers can have a go, obviously you should trust them, they should be briefed properly and only given control when you're not busy etc, but its a yes.

People can say that this may cause accidents but thats ridiculous because if you're going to be like that loads of things cause accidents, like crossing the road without a zebra crossing but there's no law against it and there shouldn't be. The chances of a passenger on the controls causing an accident are absolutely minimal and if you don't want to take the chance then don't let your passengers take control, but there shouldn't be a law against it.

englishal

24th Dec 2003, 01:37

Obviously the best thing to do is erect a complex series of (JAR approved) screens, similar to a London bus drivers cage, so that the PAX has absolutely no possible contact with any control in the cockpit. Just imagine you weary PAX having a good old stretch and accidentally catches the mixture control, or he stretches too far and accidentally deflects the rudder to full stop.

Christ, doesn't bear thinking about does it? Heaven forbid that he starts sneezing, and accidentally causes the yoke to be pushed fully forward while in the process of wiping his nose......:D

Common sense......

Cherio
EA

Say again s l o w l y

24th Dec 2003, 02:35

Tiger, the question posed by Genghis was about where was the relevant ruling on this topic.

Despite 5 pages of bad tempered unsubstantiated nonsense nobody (myself included) has come up with the solution. Is it legal or not?
Whether it is sensible is totally dependant on the circumstance. A newly minted PPL letting a mate "have a go" is concerning, but it isn't necessarily going to cause an accident.
Law is generally written for the lowest common denominator and in this case I suspect that the powers that be would prefer only qualified people at the controls, but any law like this is basically unenforceable, so it makes it pretty irrelevant.

If people use their common sense then there is no issue to argue about.

MLS-12D

24th Dec 2003, 05:43

It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that if something isn't expressly prohibited, it isn't illegal. As no one has been able to point to any specific regulatory provision, I'd say that it is fairly safe to permit a pax to handle the controls.

Now admittedly, 'they' could go after a pilot under some sort of catch-all provision prohibiting "reckless" or "negligent" conduct, but absent unusual circumstances it would likely be a tough sell before any fair-minded judge or tribunal.

BTW, who among us hasn't asked a pax to take the controls when you need a short break or have to check a chart or approach plate, etc. That's what happens in the real world, surely? I wouldn't let a non-pilot handle the takeoff or landing, but cruise is another matter.

Flyin'Dutch'

24th Dec 2003, 16:46

MLS,

I think you have hit the nail on the head, but unfortunately, as has been discovered by others that don't have their roots in the UK, there seems to be an overwhelming desire to have everything regulated to the 'n'th degree over here.

One of the main differences in attitudes I noticed when I settled on these lovely shores a decade ago was the existence of the jobsworth, a phenomenon not previously encountered by me. 'If I haven't been told I should or can do it, I am not going to!'

Ah well, in the for the time being I do what I have been doing, and hope for the best, whatever that may be!

FD

ShyTorque

24th Dec 2003, 17:52

With regard to the accident report referred to by Nr Fairy.

About 30 years ago my instructor told me of the time he had been hired to fly a man and his 2 children in a C172 on a "sight-seeing flight". The man asked to go towards a certain town where they lived.

Once they were up to height and near the town, the man tried to force the aircraft into a vertical dive. A very desperate struggle ensued, as you might imagine!

The situation was resolved when the instructor used the cockpit fire extinguisher as a baton across his deranged passenger's forehead. It was very fortunate that the aircraft held together.

Turned out the man's wife had just left him and he decided to finish it all and take the kids with him in a spectacular way.

I'm not suggesting that a similar thing happened here, but who knows what did?

FNG

29th Dec 2003, 19:22

Can I add my support to the campaign to nominate this as the most bonkers and pointless multi-page thread of 2003? (Sorry, Genghis)

Can you give a passenger a go? YES.

Er, that's it. If you really need to qualify that answer, add "when it's safe to do so". In other words, don't say to granny: "I can't be arsed to recover from this inverted spin/fly under this motorway bridge/shoot this approach to minima/whatever, so you do it".

Guess what: you won't find that anywhere in the Big Bumper Book of Law n'stuff for Pilots. Rejoice, people, for most of you live in the UK or in other civilised places such as Canada, OZ etc where the law about everything (not just flying) operates in this simple way: everything is allowed unless it is specifically not allowed. Hence there is no "ruling" on this subject and no need for one. The answer truly does lie in the realm of the bleedin' obvious.

One contributor on page 4 above suggested that the ANO or some other (unidentified) legal instrument contains wording prohibiting passengers handling controls. The text which that contributor "quoted" does not exist. He or she may have had in mind a garbled version of Article 21(2)(c) ANO. If anyone really wants a legal explanation of why that Article does not mean that your granny cannot have a go, I can provide one (DIY clue: read Art 21(1) first), but hasn't this all gone on too long already?

Fuji Abound

30th Dec 2003, 05:06

I have been following this thread and just re read it.

I wish I could think of something interesting to say or add.

I cant - its all been said.

I do however remember the thrill of that first visit to the cockpit as a kid half way across the Atlantic. The terrorists put a stop to that.

The CAA could put a stop to my friend "having a go on the controls" under my supervision. I hope they don’t.

FJJP

30th Dec 2003, 06:31

Simple. [I include my brain in that statement]. There has to be a pilot in command, who has total responsibility for all that happens during the flight. If he choses to allow an unqualified person to use the controls, then it's his responsibility. If he doesn't have the skill to dig himself out any hole ceated by his passenger, then it's his lookout. QED.

You cannot legislate for every eventuality, especially if the rule cannot be enforced; which it can't, unless you have a CAA observer on every flight...

In other words, let your passenger have a go if you feel confident in briefing him or her what to do; but go no further than your (realistic) capabilities.

Kingy

30th Dec 2003, 06:50

if the rule cannot be enforced; which it can't, unless you have a CAA observer on every flight...

The way things are going we'll all be forced to carry Air Marshals before long - I hope, through genetic engineering, they are breeding tiny, light 'mini me' style marshals for us weight conscious PFA'ers - frankly, they could come in handy for those essential low fuel drain checks and anti terrorist underside oil removal... Mmm I want one!

:D

Kingy

RichardH

30th Dec 2003, 23:36

Like Tiger_Moth can't believe this has gone on for 6 pages.

Simple enough question asked about pax handling controls, with PIC not instructor.

Yes go ahead, not a problem. As stated give a proper handover brief and do this at a safe altitude until your pax has gained some experience and confidence.

However, your passenger can't claim the hours towards a licence. Time could be noted as SNY or OBS (supernumery or observer) with the time going in "any other flying" if they wished to keep a record.

I am not aware of any written official law (ANO etc) to prevent this, writing to the CAA isn't going to help anyone.

Remember though you are the "Pilot in Command", if your passenger does cause a problem - it's your fault!

SKYYACHT

31st Dec 2003, 15:32

I just checked out this thread, and I have a few observations.

Firstly - Having considered all the statements, I must admit to having a feeling of despair! Here we are, a well qualified and mentally healthy (I hope!) community, debating the existence, or non existance of some piece of legislation that exercises yet more control over what we can and cant do.

We recently celebrated the 100th anniversary of flight, when two individuals just upped and decided that they would "have a crack at it". I am left wondering if we would all be enjoying the privileges of flight if they had been subjected to the raft of legislation that encumbers our everyday living.....imagine the wringing of hands at the Department of Transport (or whatever they are called this week!) and the required permits, High Viz Jackets, Health and Safety Risk Assesments, ("hmmm, you will have to get that exposed propeller guarded, and the sound levels emitted by that engine are far too noisy - it needs an acoustic hood!")

Before I get flamed, let me add that much of this is said tongue in cheek, as I realise that some degree of legislation is required for the benefit of the public at large, but I venture that we now go too far in regulating members of the public.

I note from contributors such as Chuck (Take my hat off to you sir!) and others from around the world, and see a refreshing stance, that places the burden of responsibility on the individual. Why ask for regulations, or give the impression that further regulation is required? We are all equipped with the faculty of common sense, and perhaps we do not use it enough? I have in the past, allowed passengers to fly the aeroplane that I am responsible for, and why shouldnt I? As far as I am concerned, I am not instructing, and I still remain legally responsible for the safe conduct of the flight. Naturally, I use my common sense to establish that the passenger is not a drooling half wit, before allowing them to take the controls, whilst I follow through.

However, safety is always paramount, and I accept that there may be occasions when it would not be prudent to allow an unqualified person to fly the darned thing!

Having said that, I now wish you all a very happy and safe 2004, and will now go back to filling in my immigration paperwork for Canada......and NZ, and Australia......

All the best!

Tailwinds and blue skies

strafer

31st Dec 2003, 16:24

Skyyacht,

Couldn't agree more. A perfect way to end this thread I think (if you ignore what I've just written).

Happy New Year

Chuck Ellsworth

1st Jan 2004, 01:00

Skyyacht:

Great post!

I live on Vancouver Island and I am stuck in the house because we have ten inches of snow that just fell in the last 24 hours.... We very seldom get snow, especially that much... and my fu..ing Suzuki Sidekick four by four is sitting in a garage getting a new transmission.....

By the way I must go out later and get the snow off my five Windmill Palm trees that are in my front yard.....they do not like snow..

Happy new year to everyone.....

Now back to my post.

Quote from Skyacht:

"I use my common sense to establish that the passenger is not a drooling half wit. "

That is about all there is to letting someone handle the controls, however if the passenger is a drooling half wit he / she would be a candidate for employment in the rule making section of Government and maybe if we let them play with the controls they would be so happy they would not want to regulate such entertainment out of existance????

Just a thought.....

Now to get serious, I was fortunate enough to have lived in the era when pilots and engineers explored and opened the far north here in Canada and Alaska. We did so by using every possible means available to us to get the job done.

When mechanical problems arose we fixed things as best we could to get us back into civilization. We had zero weather imformation available to us in many cases, we also had to fly in areas where the maps were marked " not charted"

In the later years of my time in the far north we salvaged wrecked aircraft by repairing them with whatever we could construct in the field. In 1971 we salvaged a DC3 that had landed short the season before and tore the left engine and the left landing gear out of the wing mounts... There was other damage also, two of us were dropped off at the accident site by a Twin Otter in early Oct. with everything we needed to repair it.

Fortunately there was a oil exploration camp nearby and we could stay there to sleep....the sun went down for the winter about a week after we arrived.......we built a snow house and used tarps to repair the engine including several cylinder changes and a new nose case and assemble the new prop we had brought with us...

Anyhow after fifty nine days we flew the the DC3 to Resolute Bay and all the repairs we had done worked, the left landing gear we had repaired by welding pipes and bolting into the rear spar for strength stayed firmly in place for both the take off and the landing ( no brakes or hydraulic pressure and no tail wheel lock. ) The most worrying repair we had made was we were short one cylinder that had a hole on the rocker cover, so we repaired it with plactic steel using styrofoam pieces from cups to follow the shape of the rocker cover. It broke three times during run ups...then on the fourth repair..eureka ..it held and continued to hold for the 110 nautical mile flight to Resolute Bay at thirty below in the dark, but we had a bright moon which allowed me to fly visual as we had no attitude instruments that worked..... We landed just before Christmas day and looked like something out of a horror show due to having frozen our exposed skin working in the bitter cold and wind.

The other guy was Ray Cox one of the best I ever worked with.

As I look back on the era that I managed to live through and survive without ever having had an accident I get just a little annoyed when I see our industry becomming dummed down to a mindless collection of robots meekly accepting the rules and restrictions imposed upon them by drooling half wits who have probably never ever ventured outside an office except to go to a nearby pub for a liquid lunch on their expense account paid for by us the taxpayers.

One more piece of advice from an old timer....to hell with granny, the best idea is to let some young thing handle the controls and thereby enhance your chance of getting lucky later on. :ok:

End of sermon for today.......

Chuck E.

Flyin'Dutch'

1st Jan 2004, 01:21

Amen to that!

:ok:

FD

Genghis the Engineer

1st Jan 2004, 01:24

Having started this fuss off, I think I should probably say something.

The reason I posted the question was quite straightforward. I'm in a large syndicate operating a straightforward 4-seater (A PA28 ). Recently at a syndicate meeting another member (a very experienced LAME whose hobby is private flying) ranted that nobody should be allowing their passengers to handle the controls since it was illegal (in his belief) unless the captain was an instructor.

Now I've never had any problem about allowing a sensible pax to fly my aeroplane for a bit, and have done on numerous occasions. I've even been advised to do so with nervous passengers by some very experienced instructors - so I was pretty damned certain that the fellow was wrong. But, I couldn't find anything which said so; but in the words of a retired department head at CAA "if you can't afford the answer, don't ask the question", so I wasn't going to be so daft as to ask the CAA.

So, I posted a question here hoping that somebody would know if there was a rule anywhere that I could use to point out to my colleague that he was talking rubbish.

Well, having posted the question, I've to my surprise started a thread of terrifying proportions, and let's be honest, not actually highlighted any regulation either permitting or prohibiting what most of us consider a perfectly acceptable practice. So, I shall tell my friend that he's wrong unless he can prove otherwise, and continue allowing my friends and family to fly on trips so that I can enjoy the view.

Happy new year everybody,

Genghis.

Chuck Ellsworth

1st Jan 2004, 02:16

Genghis :

Your thread is wonderful, everyone joined in and we had a real good discussion....

There is no regulation anywhere on earth specifically denying you the right to let someone enjoy the thrill of guiding a flying machine throught the air, providing it has dual controls and you use common sense in what you allow the person to do.

Even your friend who got you going on this benefits......

He can now read all these posts and realize just how disconnected he is from reality... Hopefully he does not get a job with your CAA you have enough problems there now.

Hey, I'll do my good deed for the year, next time I'm in London have him get together with me and I will attempt to re educate him so he can join the rest of us who actually understand the subject. :ok:

Chuck