View Full Version : Cost Sharing..What do people really mean?
When I see people advertising cost sharing flights, what do you really mean??
Are you expecting other pilots to sit with you and fund some of your flight time!
I have put a advert up for flight sharing and I thought I would have had a little more response. It's in the Bulldog, so not a typical 70's flying living room type affair and although my user name is not that opaque I'm sure not many have sussed that I am that idiot at Old Sarum, just yet.
Anyway my advert was looking for others for flight sharing, I was not looking for any contribution, just that the flight is returned (in whatever aircraft they fly) where I am the passenger so I can gain more experience from another pilot and see how they make mistakes.
Now since I am obviously flying a club aircraft and others who advertise cost sharing are presumably doing the same, there are some important praticalities.
1) Unless you are both at the same club one person will have to join as a guest
2) I assume most clubs will not let a guest fly the aircraft.
3) If your club allowed guests to fly the aircraft, you would need to be current on the aircraft to claim P1
4) Can the Captaincy change midflight???
Anyway you get the idea..
So my interpretation is that most adverts people place for cost sharing are aimed at getting someone to fly with them to subside their own flying. And If their passenger is a non-pilot then I guess there is nothing wrong with that.
So is that the real intention when people place cost sharing flights, because I can't really see for practical reasons in a club environment how the captaincy of the aircraft can be shared. And most pilots will be struggling to fund their own flying activities. Hence why the Spare Seat forum is pretty quiet.
When I see people advertising cost sharing flights, what do you really mean??
Presumably, whatever you arrange with the other bloke(-ess) before you decide to go flying together? :confused: Different people will have different ideas, depending on their situation, etc., so that's why you talk it out before you commit to anything.
Sorry if I missed your point, it seemed to me like you were complaining that other people don't share your concept of flight sharing? If so, I can't really see where the problem might be, isn't that a fact of life? Again, I've got the feeling I misunderstood your post, apologies if so.
hobbit1983
2nd Mar 2008, 16:00
JP1,
The "Spare seats Thread" is just that, Spare seats, not "paying half of the flight costs". I've posted in this thread before with a spare RHS, and had it filled quite quickly. I didn't ask for any formal arrangement of reciprocal flights, but nonetheless when my original RHSer had a spare seat on what he flew, he asked if I'd like to come along.
I think we'd both agree it was a worthwhile exercise, we both learned something, and having a second pilot along is always handy for lookout, extra help if needed etc.
On that note;
Now since I am obviously flying a club aircraft and others who advertise cost sharing are presumably doing the same, there are some important praticalities.
1) Unless you are both at the same club one person will have to join as a guest
2) I assume most clubs will not let a guest fly the aircraft.
3) If your club allowed guests to fly the aircraft, you would need to be current on the aircraft to claim P1
4) Can the Captaincy change midflight???
Isn't the whole point of a spare seat just that, spare? Changing command half way through, and flying the rest of the trip PIC from the RHS presumably wouldn't happen, it's a SPARE that's filled by a very enthusatic passenger.
So my interpretation is that most adverts people place for cost sharing are aimed at getting someone to fly with them to subside their own flying. And If their passenger is a non-pilot then I guess there is nothing wrong with that.
So is that the real intention when people place cost sharing flights, because I can't really see for practical reasons in a club environment how the captaincy of the aircraft can be shared. And most pilots will be struggling to fund their own flying activities. Hence why the Spare Seat forum is pretty quiet.
Agreed; the captaincy of an aircraft can't be shared - there's only 1 crew required, it's not an airliner. Hence why any flight sharing will be on a reciprocal basis.
I don't think people post in the SST to get somebody to pay for flying costs - it's to share a seat that would have otherwise gone vacant.
If you'd posted something like "I'm going flying this saturday, 9am, from OS in a Bulldog" I bet you'd have had a much larger response much quicker. The last time I posted there, I had my RHS filled within 1hr 40min.
In fact, I bet with the number of people hanging around Old Sarum on a good flying day, if you put a message on the board next to your name that you've a spare Bulldog seat going, you'd have quite a few people asking. And afterwards, I bet they'd offer you flights in their aircraft too.
LH2,
I'll come clean. It was shamless self promotion of my advert for other OS flying members to come flying with me, very badly disguised as one of those questions that stimulate lively debate and discussion in this form;)
But also wanted to know if cost sharing is really practical (honest)
Gertrude the Wombat
2nd Mar 2008, 18:44
When I see people advertising cost sharing flights, what do you really mean??
I expect they mean the legal definition of "cost sharing" as allowed to PPLs, which you can look up in the usual places.
And as the law only allows such flights to be advertised within a single club, your worries about what happens if the two people don't both belong to the same club are irrelevant, so you can stop worrying about them.
One cannot openly advertise PPL cost sharing, but one can openly advertise "seat sharing".
What arrangements people do once they meet up is up to them.
May be worth a mention that cost sharing is illegal in an N-reg in UK airspace anyway, due to ANO Article 140. The CAA exemption from Aerial Work (for PPL Cost Sharing) applies only to a G-reg.
Another reason for the adverts is that many people prefer to fly with somebody else anyway. I normally do, though not always.
Mike Cross
2nd Mar 2008, 20:54
Why don't you all just read this http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1428/summary_of_public_transport.pdf which has been written for those who don't want to plough through the ANO.
One cannot openly advertise PPL cost sharing, but one can openly advertise "seat sharing".
What's "seat sharing" when it's at home? To me if I share a seat there's either two of us sitting on it or one sits on it half of the time and the other sits on it the other half, both of which are difficult to legally achieve in a SEP during the course of a single flight.
Cost sharing is bu@@er all to do with who's PIC, it's to do with sharing the cost among the occupants (of which there can be no more than four under the exemption IIRC)
As for who's PIC
‘Pilot in command’ in relation to an aircraft means a person who for the time being is in charge of the piloting of the aircraft without being under the direction of any other pilot in the aircraft; if anyone doesn't understand that perhaps you he/she should not have passed Air Law.
No reason why in a dual control aircraft one person should not be PIC for part of the flight and someone else for another part. As to whether the PIC is legal wrt insurance or whether or not he has the owner/operator's consent to act as PIC, that has nothing to do with the fact of whether or not he is PIC within the ANO definition quoted above.
Mike
No reason why in a dual control aircraft one person should not be PIC for part of the flight and someone else for another part
There can only be one pilot in command on the flight from start to finish.
There is only one person who is responsible for the safe conduct of the flight.
Who actually manipulates the controls can be someone different from the PIC.
The operator is responsible for designating the PIC pre-flight. In the case of a private flight the operator is the pilot in command.
means a person who for the time being is in charge of the piloting of the aircraft
If it was not "for the time being" then it could be argued that your responsibility for the aircraft would not end until another pilot takes responsibility. i.e. it would not end at the end of the flight
without being under the direction of any other pilot in the aircraft
Example 1
If you decide when another pilot takes control of the flight then that other pilot is operating under your direction since they can not take control until you say so.
Example 2
If the other pilot can take control from you then it is clear that you are operating under the direction of that other pilot.
In example 1 you are the pilot in command for the whole flight in the second the otehr pilot is the pic for the whole flight.
If you want ot change the pilot in command of a private flight then end the flight and start another.
Regards,
DFC
DFC
I think you are being overly cautious. It is quite possible to hand over responsibility for the flight at any stage in the flight, and 2 people can log P1 for the element of the flight they are responsible for..... just a bit tricky
Mike Cross
2nd Mar 2008, 21:44
I refer m'learned friend DFC to Art 35
(2) Particulars of each flight during which the holder of the log book acted either as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft or for the purpose of qualifying for the grant or renewal of a licence under this Order, as the case may be, shall be recorded in the log book at the end of each flight or as soon thereafter as is reasonably practicable, including:
(a) the date, the places at which the holder embarked on and disembarked from the aircraft and the time spent during the course of a flight when he was acting in either capacity;
My emphasis
Mike
Mike,
Let me provide a more complete quote;
(2) Particulars of each flight during which the holder of the log book acted either as a
member of the flight crew of an aircraft or for the purpose of qualifying for the grant
or renewal of a licence under this Order, as the case may be, shall be recorded in the
log book at the end of each flight or as soon thereafter as is reasonably practicable,
including:
(a) the date, the places at which the holder embarked on and disembarked from the
aircraft and the time spent during the course of a flight when he was acting in
either capacity;
(b) the type and registration marks of the aircraft;
(c) the capacity in which the holder acted in flight;
(d) particulars of any special conditions under which the flight was conducted,
including night flying and instrument flying; and
(e) particulars of any test or examination undertaken whilst in flight.
The capacity referred to in (a) is either;
a member of the flight crew of an aircraft
or
for the purpose of qualifying for the grant or renewal of a licence under this Order
In other words - the capacity of a qualified member of the crew or as a member under training.
You will also note that this is separate from (c) which requires another capacity to be recorded - the capacity in which the holder acted in flight.
You will note that in this case it is the singular - capacity and not the plural capacities.
If (c) was changed to capacities then more than one capacity would be applicable.
Regards,
DFC
Trying to get this back on track...
But also wanted to know if cost sharing is really practical (honest)
It works for me, but it's a very personal thing. For me, enjoying (and sharing) the experience is far more important than cutting costs, so I will only share with people I'm comfortable with, flying and personality-wise.
The way I do, whoever logs PIC pays for the flight (irrespective of who actually steers the can, of course). Keeps it simple.
The way I do, whoever logs PIC pays for the flight (irrespective of who actually steers the can, of course). Keeps it simple.
This - whoever is PIC pays works best. Otherwise with multi person tours where the costs are split you end up trying to ensure that everyone gets as close to an equal amount of flying as possible.
Regards,
DFC
Mad Girl
3rd Mar 2008, 12:16
JP1
I'll come clean. It was shamless self promotion of my advert for other OS flying members to come flying with me, very badly disguised as one of those questions that stimulate lively debate and discussion in this form;)
But also wanted to know if cost sharing is really practical (honest)
JP1...I know who you are... and you know who I am..... :ok:
Have you got an ad. on the clubs website, in the members area, for cost sharing???
Also...... You need to either a) spend more time at the club to get to know people , or b) talk to the instructors to see if they can introduce you to other newly qualified pilots...
They're more than happy to try and pair people up.... and they usually know the personalities of the individuals too......
Have Fun :)
Hi Mad Girl,
Yes, I agree. 6 months out of the scene hasn't helped, but now the nice weather is coming you will be seeing more of me:)
shortstripper
3rd Mar 2008, 18:06
I always thought it was two pilots getting together to go further for the same money. A one hour flight means a local bimble. Two hours sharing, means a nice trip somewhere an hour away, with a cup of coffee and a bun then back, but costing the same as the local flight ... + company :)
Whopity
3rd Mar 2008, 19:30
If (c) was changed to capacities then more than one capacity would be applicable.So what happens when acting as PIC you press the PTT and also act as a Flight Radiotelephony Operator?
Art 25 (11) An aircraft registered in the United Kingdom which is required by article 20 to be equipped with radio communications apparatus shall carry a flight radiotelephony operator as a member of the flight crew.
Dual capacity!
Art 35 relates to what you are required to log and has nothing to do with what you are qualified to do and how you decide to exercise those privileges on a flight!
Of course there is dual capacity. Re-read my quote. Isn't a student pilot both a member of the flight crew and a person undergong training.
However, they can not be a passenger for the first part of the flight and a student for the middle part and then a passenger again later in the flight.
If that was the case, some training organisations would save a lot of time and money with having to make a flight to a licensed aerodrome when the training flight (a separate flight) can be commenced.
I would love to see a report along the lines of;
"I departed from the private strip as a private pilot with a pasenger at 1000. During flight at 1015 I changed to being a flight instructor and the passenger changed to being a student. We completed exercise 10B of the JAR-PPL flying sylabus until 1050 whereupon I became a private pilot again and they became a passenger and we landed safely back at the private strip at 1100."
----------
If you depart as PIC the you remain PIC for the whole flight regardless of when or if you allow another person to manipulate the controls. You are the one who made the final decision as to the safety of the proposed flight, you are the only person responsible for the safety of the flight and it is up to you when or if any other person manipulates the controls. You can not agrue that the flight was not under your direction.............even if the other person pranged the aircraft and you would like to distance yourself from a claim.
---------
Time spent as qualified radio operator is not required to be logged. You do not have to log all radio messages sent or received these days either. ;)
Regards,
DFC
homeguard
3rd Mar 2008, 21:47
DFC
What are you thinking?
Of course the PIC can change during a flight. The second PIC will have been there at the off and have full knowledge and therefore able to satisfy themself of all that you list. Having given over command the first pilot can now sit back and dream of next time and in the full knowledge that the second PIC will have planned their bit thoroughly and is also competent to complete a first class job!
Of course the PIC can change during a flight. The second PIC will have been there at the off and have full knowledge and therefore able to satisfy themself of all that you list. Having given over command the first pilot can now sit back and dream of next time and in the full knowledge that the second PIC will have planned their bit thoroughly and is also competent to complete a first class job!
Unfortunately that is not quite what it seems.
In order for the flight to depart the first pilot has to determine and decide that the flight (note I am talking about the whole flight) can be completed safely.
It is the first pilot who decides when or if the other pilot manipulates the controls.
If the first pilot permits the other pilot to endanger the flight at any stage (eg the second pilot does something dangerous while manipulating the controls) then they - the first pilot are responsible.
There is no legal requirement for the second pilot to have done any planning. However, the pilot in command can direct that a second pilot does part of the planning but that does not remove the fact that the pilot in command is responsible for ensuring that such delegated flight planning was completed correctly pre-flight.
Who decides the alternates - the first pilot. Who decides the fuel requirements for the whole flight - the first pilot. Who decides the weather minima and if it is safe to depart (commence the flight) - the first pilot.
The first pilot has made all the decisions - they have no choice as pilot in command - and they have sole responsibility for the safety and legality of the flight regardless of who actually manipulates the controls.
Regards,
DFC
S-Works
4th Mar 2008, 08:54
Rubbish. Another one of your assertions, repeated frequently and loudly enough to make it sound like the law.
Please direct us clearly to where the LAW states this, not some club rule you may have instigated and are now trying to preach as law.
Julian
4th Mar 2008, 09:30
Indeed, who says the first pilot decides everything? What is stop both pilots carrying out the calculations, mutually deciding on alternates, etc?
Have swapped PIC mid-air more times than I can remember.
J.
Islander2
4th Mar 2008, 09:39
There can be little doubt that DFC is wrong on this point. From the ANO:
'Commander' in relation to an aircraft means the member of the flight crew designated as commander of that aircraft by the operator, or, failing such a person, the person who is for the time being the pilot in command of the aircraft.Despite DFC's protestations to the contrary, there is no other meaningful reason for inserting the words 'for the time being' other than in contemplation of the Pic changing in flight. If, as DFC rather farcically suggests, the words are necessary to allow the Pic's responsibilities to cease at the end of the flight, it would be equally necessary to insert them in the first part of the definition relating to an operator-designated commander!
S-Works
4th Mar 2008, 15:03
I belive that under the FAA rules, s/he with the higher certificate ratings can be held responsable (pic) if anything goes wrong with the flight............ heard a story of the FAA going after an ATP holder who was asleep in the back !!!!!!!
Also an urban myth usually spread by ATP holders to 'mere' PPL's in order to impress them with how much 'better' qualified they are.
homeguard
4th Mar 2008, 15:16
Rather terrifying thought.
Does it mean then that on boarding an aircraft for my annual hols that I should beware in case the flight crew cocks up. For, if it so happens my licence/ratings are senior than theirs then I will be dragged from my seat in row 36 and thrown in chains into the hold until the cops arrive.
What a load of nonsense can be contrived over a simple matter of who is the PIC.
Any volunteers I say!
chrisN
4th Mar 2008, 16:46
I too would like to know the definitive answer to this question. Diametrically opposed answers posted by two different people as being definitive do not seem to me to have clarified it.
For what it’s worth, in the year 2000, I was asked to research a number of aspects of pilot in command, and during the course of that, I had a conversation with the then deputy head of the CAA SRG. He told me that (paraphrasing) the Pilot in Command so designated at the outset of the flight must remain so until the flight is completed - even if the other pilot takes the controls for part, most or even all of the flight. This is the opinion as asserted above by DFC.
I am well aware that large numbers of GA pilots and instructors take the same view as Bose, however. I understand that the practice is widespread of sharing the role of pilot in command, without the aircraft landing in between for the handover to take place.
I suspect that if someone approached the CAA today, the answer they might get could depend on the particular opinion of the person they contacted, so it might go either way.
It seems to me a great pity that the way the law is phrased leaves open a degree of ambiguity, to say the least.
Chris N. [edited - sp mistake]
S-Works
4th Mar 2008, 17:07
He told me that (paraphrasing) the Pilot in Command so designated at the outset of the flight must remain so until the flight is completed - even if the other pilot takes the controls for part, most or even all of the flight.
Chris, all well and good expressing an opinion as has DFC. But opinion is worthless without the law that is claimed to back it up. I have merely expressed my opinion that we have not seen proof that it specifically prohibited. Our law is based on the freedoms of things being permitted unless they are specifically outlawed. Therefore all I ask is to see where it is specifically not permitted in law.
Julian
4th Mar 2008, 17:19
I suspect that if someone approached the CAA today, the answer they might get could depend on the particular opinion of the person they contacted, so it might go either way.
Another reason why unless it is specifically stated in law that you cant do it I would ignore them.
J.
chrisN
4th Mar 2008, 17:57
“ . . . unless it is specifically stated in law that you cant do it I would ignore them”
Interesting that the authors of the ANO start practically every section with the words “An aircraft shall not fly unless . . . “ and follow with a series of exceptions. Does this not put the boot on the other foot, i.e. you can’t unless they say you can?
Anyway, it remains the case that intelligent pilots (aren’t we all) cannot agree unanimously what the law means, which has to be poor drafting.
I wonder if there is any case law to clarify it? I would have thought somebody would have heard about it if there were.
Chris N.
S-Works
4th Mar 2008, 18:28
“ . . . unless it is specifically stated in law that you cant do it I would ignore them”
Interesting that the authors of the ANO start practically every section with the words “An aircraft shall not fly unless . . . “ and follow with a series of exceptions. Does this not put the boot on the other foot, i.e. you can’t unless they say you can?
Anyway, it remains the case that intelligent pilots (aren’t we all) cannot agree unanimously what the law means, which has to be poor drafting.
I wonder if there is any case law to clarify it? I would have thought somebody would have heard about it if there were.
Chris N.
Which was kind of my point. Until someone points me at a specific statement that clearly makes it illegal to swap commanders in flight I shall continue like many others to see no issue with it. I shall enjoy swapping P1 on the 5hr legs so I can have a coffee and sandwich and enjoy the view at 15,000ft.
Mike Cross
4th Mar 2008, 18:44
I think we have to put it down as one of those ambiguities that arise. If you read JAR's on the subject of logging flight time you might think they favour DFC's view, if you read the ANO you might think it favours the other view.
Personally I don't intend to lose any sleep over it. When I fly with someone else we log legs rather than partial legs but I wouldn't have any qualms about logging half a sector.
Doesn't some long-haul involve crew swaps mid-leg? The A380 has a crew rest area with 12 bunks in it IIRC.
I belive that under the FAA rules, s/he with the higher certificate ratings can be held responsable (pic) if anything goes wrong with the flight.
It's not a rule in the FARs, but IIRC there have been cases where the NTSB held a passenger responsible for an accident, where the 'passenger' was say a CFI/CFII and the PIC was just a PPL.
I think that is reasonable. If I was an instructor, it would be totally daft of me to allow a PPL PIC to screw up badly and just sit there with my arms folded, walking away from all responsibility. The legal difference may be just that under JAA you (the instructor) can do that, whereas under FAA somebody is going to have words with you, which frankly is to be expected.
S-Works
4th Mar 2008, 20:24
that may be so, but not while asleep in the back.....
Indeed, who says the first pilot decides everything? What is stop both pilots carrying out the calculations, mutually deciding on alternates, etc?
Are we having pilot in command by committee now?
One person must take final responsibility for deciding if the flight can proceed safely. They can consult several people and obtain information from numerous sources. They can even have assistance with fuel calculations, selection of alternates etc.
However, if the fuel calculation done by another pilot is wrong it will be the single pilot in command who will be responsible even if they run out of fuel after they have passed the manipulation of the controls to another pilot. If the weather is incorrectly checked by the second pilot it is the single pilot in command who is at fault for not crosschecking.
Here is a scenario I hope none of us have to deal with;
Aircraft departs with two equally qualified PPLs. for a flight from XXX to YYY with ZZZ as an alternate. Pilot A is pilot in command but pilot B has checked the fuel requirements and uploaded the fuel.
Half way between XXX and YYY pilot A hands control to pilot B who then flies the aircraft. For those that think that way you can think that pilot B is now pilot in command.
10nm short of YYY the aircraft runs out of fuel and quickly after crashes killing a few innocent people on the ground because pilot B performed a rubbish forced landing procedure..
Is pilot A responsible?
Is pilot B responsible?
Will they both do a Hammilton act and claim that they can't remember who was pilot in command at the various times actions were completed which lead to the accident?
Regards,
DFC
PS A very good reason for only having 1 pilot in command with sole responsibility is the whole risky shift situation whereby groups will do more riskier actions than any one individual of that group would do.
S-Works
5th Mar 2008, 08:14
DFC, you are giving reasons why YOU think that it should not happen. Which is fair enough you are entitled to your opinion.
However you have still to show us in LAW where it is not permitted.
You just continue to make assertions as if it is the law, without evidence it is opinion nothing more and your opinion is different from others.
Inventing laws as usual, DFC.
But
Will they both do a Hammilton act and claim that they can't remember who was pilot in command at the various times actions were completed which lead to the accident?
is a valid point, and this is exactly what a lot of people will do. Not just in aviation, but in any other situation where this is to the individual's advantage. Some will even fake stories completely.
This is for example why one should never accept money from passengers where such a payment would be illegal, because they are very likely to spill the beans following an accident, if doing so can yield a higher award. And getting the pilot prosecuted for breach of such and such bit of the ANO is always likely to lead to a higher award because a civil action is so much easier to win if the defendant has already been criminally convicted.
However you have still to show us in LAW where it is not permitted.
The ANO has several references to the Pilot in Command (singular). There is absolutely no reference to the plural which would exist if ther was a flight that had more than one pilot in command.
Does the Government really have to legislate for common sense issues?
I mean common sense in terms of;
Would you put your name down as pilot in command of an unairworthy aircraft or and aircraft that has less fuel than what required to safely complete the flight?
That is what you could be doing if you decide to agree to as people put it - taking over as pilot in command at a point during the flight.
Pilot A and B two basic PPLs depart in their PA28 on a flight from Shoreham to Exeter. They agree that pilot A will be in command and to avoid any debate pilot B will take over as pilot in command overhead Dorchester. The flight departs with suficient fuel to fly to Exeter and hold for 45 minutes. No alternates are checked (or required) for the VFR flight.
Overhead Poole harbour and the surrounding area Pilot A does several orbits and spends 1 hour taking photos of the scenery. The aircraft now has not got enough fuel to get to Exeter.
Just prior to Dorchester the pilot A does some aerobatics and puts some lovely ripples in the upper wing surface through overstressing.
As the aircraft approaches the change over point, Pilot A climbs the aircraft into cloud and now in cloud pilot A declars the aircraft (correctly) to be overhead Dorchester and that pilot B is now the pilot in command.
Do you want to be that Pilot B now in command of the damaged aircraft with insuficient fuel to reach destination and illegally in cloud?
Do you want to be responsible for the subsequent accident?
While it may be extreme, does any pilot find themselves so desperate for PIC hours in logbook to take such risks?
---------
DFC, you are giving reasons why YOU think that it should not happen. Which is fair enough you are entitled to your opinion.
Can you provide any reasonable reason wny it should happen on a private recreational flight? or the basic on which the second pilot could guarantee the legal requirements pertaining to the acceptance of an aircraft by a pilot in command can be completed at the time they accept responsibility ofr the aircraft?
Regards,
DFC
S-Works
7th Mar 2008, 08:17
Nice comeback DFC. But you have still not shown where it is illegal. Show me the law, don't just make more rubbish up to support your cause.
If the ANO has several clauses that specifically and clearly prevent it happening show them to us. Put up or shut up I think is the term.
Islander2
7th Mar 2008, 08:32
I wonder if DFC thinks an aeroplane can be legally flown with no pilot in command? If not, how can a flight legally proceed following pilot incapacitation if transfer of Pic is prohibited?
pulse1
7th Mar 2008, 08:46
Those who are interested in possible confusion by the authorities over which pilot is in command may remember this Cessna 337 accident:
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_500887.pdf
The aircraft was on a delivery flight from Bournemouth to Biggin Hill, apparently ran out of fuel and crash landed near the M25. It was being flown by a current PPL with a non current ATPL as passenger.
I seem to remember that the ATPL was prosecuted by the CAA but was cleared when it was revealed under cross examination (by Flying Lawyer?)that the PPL had entered the flight in his logbook as Commander. I think it also transpired that it had not run out of fuel, it was bad fuel mangement.
If not, how can a flight legally proceed following pilot incapacitation if transfer of Pic is prohibited?
I believe that is an emergency and there is no requirement for the person left to save the aircraft to have any qualifications or even flying ability. They could not log the flight time as anything.
Lots of aircraft fly round with no pilot in comand and in fact no one on board at all.
Some people would have you believe that a pilot who has a medical expiring at midnight tonight can depart as pilot in command at 1130PM on a 3 hour flight but hand over to another pilot at 23:59:59.
Can't see the CAA having the same view if they check the pilot's licenc and medical pre-flight!
Regards,
DFC
chrisN
7th Mar 2008, 11:26
It seems to me that DFC did quote the law, in his post number 12, but as I pointed out in post number 29, not everyone agrees that it is clear enough, so it is poorly drafted. At least one CAA official told me that the law said what DFC thinks is the right interpretation.
I don’t see how we can progress the discussion any further without a legal case which establishes a precedent or the CAA clarifies and/or amends the law.
Also, the issue of whether pilot in command can change during flight without landing is not the same as whether the most highly qualified person on board must be regarded as the commander. I believe that it is not so – the PIC can be much lower qualified than others on board as long as he/she holds sufficient qualification to be PIC is his/her own right.. The CAA told me that too. Nowhere in the ANO as far as I can find out does it even suggest any such thing, except for one instance regarding check flights and instructors, I believe (please be gentle with me – I paraphrase and am not an expert). AIUI, there can be a circumstance where a PPL flies as commander, with an instructor there too but not flying or in command, to re-establish currency. If all is well, the PPL is PIC and the instructor cannot log the time as other than as a passenger. But if the instructor deems it necessary to take over, he suddenly becomes PIC and the PPL becomes PUT or something. I think that is curious to say the least, but others will know if I understand it correctly. If it is so, it leads to some interesting questions that DFC posed about the commander taking over without necessarily having done all the preparation one should – but in the context of local circuits for retraining I suppose that is a minor issue.
With regard to an emergency if the PIC and/or only qualified pilot on board is incapacitated, safety of the aircraft and occupants overrides the need for licensing etc. and is a non-issue, AIUI. It has nothing to do with whether PIC can legally change in flight imho.
Chris N. [Edited to clarify what I mean about qualification]
Islander2
7th Mar 2008, 11:30
I believe that is an emergency and there is no requirement for the person left to save the aircraft to have any qualifications or even flying ability. They could not log the flight time as anything.So to be clear, DFC, where the captain of a MPA is incapacitated at the time he is PF and the flight is completed by the pilot who was technically PNF for the sector, are you saying that PNF would complete the flight as Pic, P2 or could not log the flight time as anything?
Confused, Islander2 :hmm:
chrisN
7th Mar 2008, 11:34
Islander, DFC will no doubt respond for himself, but to clarify my comments above, I meant in the context of single pilot operations, not MPA.
I should have thought the latter is covered anyway by MPA provisions in the law, but what do I know.
Chris N.
S-Works
7th Mar 2008, 14:19
ChrisN. DFC quoted something that does not clearly state anything. He applied his own interpretation to it. Other have applied a different interpretation. Since then he has done nothing but come up with opinion as to why he is right not FACT.
I am therefore still keen to see where the law states that it is illegal to have a change of command during a flight.
This is of course based on the premise that the pilot taking command has met the obligations for safe conduct of the flight with respect to flight planning, licencing etc.
Islander2
7th Mar 2008, 14:24
I should have thought the latter is covered anyway by MPA provisions in the law
The ANO makes no distinction whatsoever between the commander (and the commander's duties) of an MPA and the commander (and the commander's duties) of an SPA.
Incapacitation, I believe, is one example of the Pic legally changing in flight.
But the overriding, compelling argument in favour of its legality is that the ANO definition of commander clearly contemplates that it may not be the same person throughout the flight.
dublinpilot
7th Mar 2008, 14:44
The ANO has several references to the Pilot in Command (singular). There is absolutely no reference to the plural which would exist if ther was a flight that had more than one pilot in command.
So what? No one is talking about having multiple pilots in command :rolleyes:
They are asserting that it's possible to change the pilot in command without having to land first. I agree with them too. There is nothing to stop changing of pilot in command during a flight.
As Bose says, if you know of a piece of leglisation that bans it, then quote it. Don't tell us why in your opinion on why it's not a good idea, and just quote the leglisation banning it.
dp
Julian
7th Mar 2008, 16:42
I always thought that (under FAA, anyway) as long as s/he signs the other pilots logbook a CFI can always log the flight as pic..........
Under FAA the CFI/CFII/MEI and the person in the LHS can both log PIC as long as they both hold a licence for the type of aircraft (i.e. SE(L) ) and type rated (if required).
J.
"The pilot in command shall be responsible for the safety of all crew members, passengers and cargo on board when the doors are closed. The pilot in command shall also be responsible for the operation and the safety of the aeroplane from the moment the aeroplane is ready to move for the purpose of taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight and the engine(s) used as primary propulsion units are shut down"
ICAO Annex 6. Part 2
The UK does not differ from this position.
Very hard to do the highlighted bit if one is not pilot in command from start to finish.
The definition of pilot in command in the UK is different from the ICAO one.
ICAO - Pilot in command. The pilot designated by the operator or in the case of general aviation the owner as being in command and charged with the safe conduct of a flight.
UK - ‘Pilot-in-command’ in
relation to an aircraft means a person who for the time being is in charge of
the piloting of the aircraft without being under the direction of any other pilot in the aircraft.
The UK definition covers more situations than the ICAO one. For example the words "any other pilot in the aircraft" are very important when we are dealing with student pilots. They are not designated by the operator or the owner as being pilot in command - they are authorosed to do so by an instructor and they are operating under the direction of another pilot - the flight instructor but for solo flights the instructor is not in the aircraft.
For the time being - Dual - solo - dual. One period of the time is with the student as pilot in command and thus during that period they are "for the time being" pilot in command.
However, I have yet to see an instructor vacate an aircraft via parachute when sending a student solo ( other than in an emergency). :D
I think that chrisN is correct in saying that this will only be fully defined when someone ends up in court. Do we have any volunteers for that. Obvously, you can't end up there by having one pilot in command per flight.
It is very ironic that there seems to be a common theme with this question and the one of can I be PIC when duing a dual checkout flight. That being the lengths that private recreational pilots seem to be willing to go to get an extra hour or two of PIC time...........and most of those that propose such ideas are agast that a professional pilot such as an instructor should ever be gaining experience to advance their career.
Is the idea of recreational pilots simply to enjoy flying? Or is there some sily competition / willy waving going on? or are those that need to go to such lengths simply justifying the parker pen flying they need to do to keep their licence?
Is it about enjoying flying or about collecting numbers in a book?
---------
Islander2,
I do not want to go down the multi crew road because this is the private forum. However, I must point out that in the multi crew environment being pilot flying (PF) or pilot non flying (PNF) has nothing to do with and is in no way connected with being (or not being) pilot in command.
Regards,
DFC
Islander2
7th Mar 2008, 22:19
I do not want to go down the multi crew road because this is the private forum. However, I must point out that in the multi crew environment being pilot flying (PF) or pilot non flying (PNF) has nothing to do with and is in no way connected with being (or not being) pilot in command.Very true ... so why not just answer the perfectly simple question I posed in #46?
Gertrude the Wombat
8th Mar 2008, 09:12
Much of aviation law comes from how things are done in boats, of course.
The captain of a boat remains the captain, and liable for whoever is driving the thing, even whilst he is asleep in bed.
Hmmmmm so how does a JAA instructor log his flights, as pic, and his post ppl student, as well.............. or is this the pilot under instruction log entry ? Is the instructor, as under FAA rules, the " buck stops here " guy........
In JAA land, the instructor is AFAIK always PIC, and the "student" logs PU/T even if he has paperwork which would make him legal to be PIC on that flight.
In FAA land, a lot of training is done with the student as PIC and the instructor logs PIC too. But there are variations.
Very true ... so why not just answer the perfectly simple question I posed in #46?
Without going into specifics because I do not think MPA is relevant to this discussion and we do not want to confuse the basic issue but I think that you have to ask yourself why say a B737 has two pilots?
That aircraft is required to have two pilots - the pilot in command - P1 and the co-pilot -P2.
The P2 in many cases will not be qualified to be pilot in command i.e. they will not hold an ATPL and/ or they will not be type qualified as PIC.
One of the reasons for having two pilots is to avoid the posibility of a single incapacitation seriously endangering the flight.
Therefore one of the normal day to day duties of the P2 is to safely land the aircraft should the PIC become incapacitated and as P2 they are trained and qualified to do so.
So one could argue that if the pilot in command becomes incapacitated the P2 is still performing the functions of the P2 by safely landing the aircraft........they are simply doing what a P2 does in such a situation.
Qualified P2's log P2 time.
Regards,
DFC
homeguard
8th Mar 2008, 11:25
IO540
The pilot does not always log PUT and the instructor PIC, as you claim.
DFC
The reason why some aircraft are multi-crew is because the aircraft operation requires two pilots. Human redundancy, obviously, is a benefit. When the second pilot is the nominated handling pilot they log P1/S because as the second pilot they do not become the PIC. On an aircraft that requires only one crew member this cannot happen.
When the second pilot is the nominated handling pilot they log P1/S because as the second pilot is not PIC
Being Pilot Flying (PF) and operating as P1/S are totally separate issues.
If the P2 is designated as PF then that makes no difference to the fact that they are P2 and they log P2 time - They simply are the pilot who perform the functions of Pilot Flying as defined in the ops manual.
However, in a totally separate issue, if the company has a procedure for such in the ops manual and it is approved by the Authority, then the P2 can operate the flight in accordance with the ops manual as pilot in command but under the supervision of the P1. When that is the case then the P2 can log P1/S.
As an example - A B737 crewed by a P1 holding an ATPL and a P2 holding a CPL - in that case the P2 can not ever operate as P1/S because they do not have the required qualification (an ATPL). They can operate as Pilot Flying and all the companies I have come across require the PF/PNF roles to be rotated with certain special case exceptions.
----------
Now back to private flying! :D
Regards,
DFC
It is very ironic that there seems to be a common theme with this question and the one of can I be PIC when duing a dual checkout flight. That being the lengths that private recreational pilots seem to be willing to go to get an extra hour or two of PIC time
DFC,
the other common theme I observe in both is your asserting your views on what you like and what you think is good practice (that I tend to agree with) as being the law or being supported by legalese stuff, which, frankly, I thought was nonsense in the checkout thread. As I did in the IFR comment you repeated emphatically in another thread
Sorry, let me repeat what I said with emphasis;
Quote:
Any IFR flight must be operated on the basis that from entering IMC it may not exit IMC until reaching minima at the alternate.
Which simply isn't true. It suggests that any "dipping" into IMC enroute requires all the IFR fuel and alternate planning even if the forecast for the intended arrival is perfect VFR. The defence "well it's a good idea anyway" doesn't apply, because you're not posting what is good practice but what "must" be done and what is legal vs. illegal.
Nothing you've posted about the accountability and responsibility of the pilot in command in ICAO or the ANO contradicts the idea that the role can be transferred, by mutual agreement, at some point during a flight. I happen to agree with you that it may be illegal, but I can't see it directly in the text.
For example,
Who decides the alternates - the first pilot. Who decides the fuel requirements for the whole flight - the first pilot. Who decides the weather minima and if it is safe to depart (commence the flight) - the first pilot.
The first pilot has made all the decisions - they have no choice as pilot in command - and they have sole responsibility for the safety and legality of the flight regardless of who actually manipulates the controls.
may sound impressive, but it doesn't support your point at all. Nothing stops a second pilot, in mid flight, deciding they are also satisfied with all of the fuel state, flight planning and weather factors etc. a PIC is responsible for, if they have the information to hand or studied it at the same time as the first PIC, and therefore being willing to assume the PIC responsibilities at that point in the flight. There may be other barriers to this transfer, but your point isn't one of them.
I know little about airline ops, but I think there is a relevant example. It's not to do with MPAs as such, but aircraft whose flight time is so long, that one entire crew must handover to another crew inflight. I'm thinking of an A340 on some 18hr transpacific flight. Don't they carry 2 complete crews? Doesn't the initial PIC stop being able to exercise the privileges of PIC at some point due to duty hour limitations? And thus doesn't the PIC role hand over from one pilot to another in-flight? (I'm not sure how this works, so this is a question - not a statement!)
rgds
421C
point taken! the 18hr A380 thing may have been getting carried away! :O
Maybe not a current model Airbus, 421C, but there have certainly been flights longer than that, in both civilian and military situations. A 747 has flown all the way from London to Australia. Obviously NOT under the same crew.
There is another data point for being able to change the PIC mid-flight: the need to fly outside UK airspace for e.g. paid training in foreign reg planes. This has been done by certain UK operations, with full knowledge and approval of the CAA. The instructor is a passenger only until the FIR boundary. This is a widely accepted practice and has been for much longer than I have been flying.
the need to fly outside UK airspace for e.g. paid training in foreign reg planes.
Interesting. How does that work?
Julian
8th Mar 2008, 15:13
"The pilot in command shall be responsible for the safety of all crew members, passengers and cargo on board when the doors are closed. The pilot in command shall also be responsible for the operation and the safety of the aeroplane from the moment the aeroplane is ready to move for the purpose of taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight and the engine(s) used as primary propulsion units are shut down"
This does not say that there can be only one only that a PIC must be in charge.
ICAO - Pilot in command. The pilot designated by the operator or in the case of general aviation the owner as being in command and charged with the safe conduct of a flight.
So there are 4 owners of our aircraft, so any of us can change to PIC mid flight, we can also ask our pax (if suitably qualified) if they wish to be PIC.
UK - ‘Pilot-in-command’ in
relation to an aircraft means a person who for the time being is in charge of
the piloting of the aircraft without being under the direction of any other pilot in the aircraft.
"for the time being", suggests that not throughout the flight, again not stating it cannot change.
It is very ironic that there seems to be a common theme with this question and the one of can I be PIC when duing a dual checkout flight. That being the lengths that private recreational pilots seem to be willing to go to get an extra hour or two of PIC time...........and most of those that propose such ideas are agast that a professional pilot such as an instructor should ever be gaining experience to advance their career.
DFC, why should a pilot not defend his/her right to log hours they are rightly entitled to??? Your 'private recreational pilot' has every right to log his hours correctly (and in fact legally) as your 'professional instructor'. They may even be heading the 'professional route' themselves and therefore required to hour build - not have them 'stolen' by the FI.
Also, is your FI gaining experience or hours in your statement? He would gain experience no matter what he logged!!!!
Is the idea of recreational pilots simply to enjoy flying? Or is there some sily competition / willy waving going on? or are those that need to go to such lengths simply justifying the parker pen flying they need to do to keep their licence?
Aha, but its OK to wave your willy and Parker pen about if you are an FI is it??? Thanks for clearing that one up DFC :ugh:
Is it about enjoying flying or about collecting numbers in a book?
Its about both and 'collecting numbers' is actually a legal requirement!
J.
Another example is the practice of training from unlicensed airfields, where you fly off to a licensed one first.
Julian,
Quote:
"The pilot in command shall be responsible for the safety of all crew members, passengers and cargo on board when the doors are closed. The pilot in command shall also be responsible for the operation and the safety of the aeroplane from the moment the aeroplane is ready to move for the purpose of taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight and the engine(s) used as primary propulsion units are shut down"
This does not say that there can be only one only that a PIC must be in charge.
One can not be responsible for something that one has absolutely no control over.
Thus in your idea of having two pilots in command, the second one would not comply with the above requirement because they would be unable to ensure the safety of the aircraft etc during the period of the flight prior to them taking over.
Similarly the above statement clearly makes the (first in your case) pilot in command responsible from the very start of the flight until the engine is shut down at the end of the flight which means that the second pilot would not be pilot in command at any stage.
-----------
IO540,
Yes an excellent example of when a flight must terminate before the crew composition can change. I made that point earlier.
-------------
421C,
The rules regarding IFR flight in terms of qualifications, equipment, fuel requirements, alternate(s) required etc does not change except with one exception not relevant to your comment depending on if it is a short or long IFR flight. The only way to fly in IMC and avoid all the IFR requirements is to fly special VFR.
Your points regarding a pilot being satisfied mid-flight and taking over does not solve the main problem - in order for them to take over the pilot in command is the person who decides when or even if they will take over. Therefore you can not argue that they are not operating under the direction of another pilot - one could even argue that if pilot A tells pilot B to be pilot in command then pilot B is clearly operating under the direction of pilot A.
I will say again that I am not going to go discussing heavy crews and cruise pilots etc etc since I have yet to see a C172 or PA28 or similar requiring such.
------------
WOW !!!
I think that the question was.... If Bill and l ( both ppl holders ) are flying along in a Pa 28 to visit xyz, and l say to Bill " hey Bill, would you like to take over control for the next XX mins/hrs " and he does. Who is pic now. I would say Bill, but most prob wrong
You are still pilot in command. It is you who decided that the flight could proceed safely, it is you who decided that Bill could (if they want) fly the aircraft, it is you who decided when Bill could fly the aircraft and without doubt it is you who will take control if Bill is about to put the aircraft in danger. It is clear that Bill is flying the aircraft under your direction.
Bill can log the flight and record the period they were sole manipulator of the controls - quite important if they need to bag some take-off and landings for the 90 day rule but they can not log P1 because they were not.
Regards,
DFC
Islander2
10th Mar 2008, 09:45
"The pilot in command shall be responsible for the safety of all crew members, passengers and cargo on board when the doors are closed. The pilot in command shall also be responsible for the operation and the safety of the aeroplane from the moment the aeroplane is ready to move for the purpose of taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight and the engine(s) used as primary propulsion units are shut down"
One can not be responsible for something that one has absolutely no control over.Very true ... but, rather inconveniently for your argument, DFC, the ANO doesn't put that responsibility on the PIC (the words in italics are not from the ANO!!).
You are free to put whatever interpretation you wish on this, DFC, but for those that would rather stick to the facts there are only two salient pointers:
1. nowhere in the ANO is it stated that the PIC cannot change in flight; and
2. the definitions in the ANO for 'commander' and 'pilot in command' contemplate that it can.
Where the PIC is to change in flight, clearly both pilots must satisfy the pre-flight actions required by Art 52.
Islander 2,
The words in italics are from ICAO Annex 6 Part 2. The UK has no notified difference from that part of that document.
The UK therefore has informed the world that it's pilot's in command comply with that standard. Are you saying that you do not?
Or are you saying that this idea of swapping PIC will only happen in UK Territorial Airpsace - note that is not the same as the FIR and only extends to the land border or a few nm from the coast - a point lost on many IMC Rating holders who think that they can use the IMC rating up to the FIR boundary.
Have a look in the AIP and you will see the current differences between UK legislation and practice and those specified in the ICAO documents - all differences are legally notified there and the absence of a difference signals compliance.
Regards,
DFC
Where the PIC is to change in flight, clearly both pilots must satisfy the pre-flight actions required by Art 52
Which of course can't be done because only one pilot (the pilot in command) has the legal ability to decide if the flight should proceed or not and only one pilot has the responsibility for the pre-flight actions.
What happens when 1 of your PICs decides the weather is OK and the other PIC does not agree. Legally who has responsibility for making the go or no-go decision in your scenario?
If you are saying that should the first PIC say it is OK to go but the second one can say no and can stop the flight then you are therefore saying that the final decision actually rested with the second pilot should the flight stop or it rested with the first pilot should it proceed.
If you are saying that the one who say's no can stay behind then where do they stand because they are the other PIC and they have not ensured the safety of the flight by stopping it.
--------
Enough of the arguments for having one PIC.
No one has put up a good reason for having 2 in a private aircraft. Perhaps if there is a good reason then ICAO and the EASA can look at it.........but I doubt that we will see one.
Regards,
DFC
Julian
10th Mar 2008, 12:03
If you are saying that should the first PIC say it is OK to go but the second one can say no and can stop the flight then you are therefore saying that the final decision actually rested with the second pilot should the flight stop or it rested with the first pilot should it proceed.
If you are saying that the one who say's no can stay behind then where do they stand because they are the other PIC and they have not ensured the safety of the flight by stopping it.
You are now confusing yourself DFC, we are discussing swapping PIC not having 2 people in command at exactly the same time. If 2 people are on the ground and Pilot No 1 wants to go but Pilot No 2 does not want to go because of the weather then nothing stops Pilot 1 going on his own - or vica versa!
Enough of the arguments for having one PIC.
No one has put up a good reason for having 2 in a private aircraft. Perhaps if there is a good reason then ICAO and the EASA can look at it.........but I doubt that we will see one.
Well its obviously happening and on long trips (which maybe you do not undertake so never had to), it is a good idea.
ICAO and EASA wont need to look at it at the moment as so far there is no DEFINITIVE statement to say that you CANNOT swap PIC mid flight.
Well its obviously happening and on long trips (which maybe you do not undertake so never had to), it is a good idea.
No it is not "obviously happening on long trips". Even if you think that you are doing it you may find that in legal terms you are not. That is only going to come to light if an accident or incident happens. Feel free to take such a risk if you like.
It is a good idea to share the flying on long trips. However, that is totally separate from the matter of who is responsible for the safe and legal conduct of the flight start to finish.
Do you honestly think that you can get away with allowing another pilot take control of the flight and doing something ilegal without you having responsibility for having let it happen or at least doing nothing to correct the actions of that pilot?
Remember that if you believe you have handed the PIC over to another pilot, you are now merely a passenger and have no authority to prevent them doing something illegal and can not step in to prevent them breaking the law.
Many people seem to confuse the pilot flying the aircraft with the pilot in command. There is no link. The pilot flying a single pilot private aircraft does not have to be qualified. The pilot in command does. If you link handing over control of the aircraft to handing over responsibility then many people who fly aircraft are going to be grounded.
----------
ICAO and EASA wont need to look at it at the moment as so far there is no DEFINITIVE statement to say that you CANNOT swap PIC mid flight.
Are you one of those pilots that thinks it is OK to fly into the side of a cliff at 120Kt? There is no definitive statement that you cannot.
Common sense might say that it is not a good idea and the general reluctance to bring an early halt to one's flying prevents one from doing such stupid things.
-----------
Can anyone please provide a situation where there would be a requirement to change PIC mid-flight?
Can anyone please explain how they record this change of pilot in command on the flight plan (when filed)..........which in the case of everything else only permits the recording of one pilot in command and is a legal record of the flight?
Can they also please indicate how in the case of public transport aircraft eg those hired from schools or clubs or groups in the UK the change of pilot in command is recorded - another legal document.
-------------
Seems the only other side to the argument is "there is no DEFINITIVE statement to say that you CANNOT". Which fails to address all the reasons why you can not.
Regards,
DFC
Lasiorhinus
10th Mar 2008, 14:58
In Australia, we have Civil Aviation Regulation 224, which states:
224 Pilot in command
(1) For each flight the operator shall designate one pilot to act as pilot in
command.
Penalty: 5 penalty units.
(1A) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
I am astounded that there is no similar stipulation in your own laws.
S-Works
10th Mar 2008, 15:02
Seems the only other side to the argument is "there is no DEFINITIVE statement to say that you CANNOT". Which fails to address all the reasons why you can not.
Regards,
DFC
Which is very much different from your assertions that you can not.
Like I said before there is a difference between your opinion of why it can't happen which could be valid. But trying to argue it across as being law does you no favours........
Julian
10th Mar 2008, 20:57
Do you honestly think that you can get away with allowing another pilot take control of the flight and doing something ilegal without you having responsibility for having let it happen or at least doing nothing to correct the actions of that pilot?
Remember that if you believe you have handed the PIC over to another pilot, you are now merely a passenger and have no authority to prevent them doing something illegal and can not step in to prevent them breaking the law.
You are not PIC if you designated someone else and they have accepted so you are not 'getting with anything'
Can anyone please provide a situation where there would be a requirement to change PIC mid-flight?
See previous post, there can be any number of reasons you would want to - even if you dont want to accept them.
Are you one of those pilots that thinks it is OK to fly into the side of a cliff at 120Kt?
If you want to commit sucide then go ahead but dont try and bring stupid comments like that in to try and justify your lame argument which has so far been supersition with no legal backup.
And here is another quote from the FARs (As you brought in ICAO definitions as well) which does more completely define PIC status
Pilot in command means the person who
(1) Has final authourity and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;
(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and
(3) Holds the appropriate category, class and type ratings, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight
My emphasis on 'during the flight' just to make sure you dont miss it DFC.