Carrying passenger on Dual NAV Flights after GFPT

[ckaine]

I'm hoping someone may be able to tell me whether it is legal to carry a passenger on Dual, with instructor, navigation flights after completing your GFPT but before completing the full PPL.

Thanks!!

[j3pipercub]

Short answer, NO, no passengers may be carried on training flights. The only exception I have ever heard of are other students doing the same training backseating on navs. Friends and Family are not allowed AFAIK

[djpil]

other students doing the same training =passengers too.
The rule is something like - no pax when practicing or training in emergency procedures. Since they would normally be done on a nav training flight then the answer is NO. However, if you wanted to take your wife to lunch somewhere and have the instructor to make it happen - ask your instructor and expect a YES. (per my recollection and opinion)

[startingout]

I dont quite understand you djpil. When i did my licence, a month ago, we usually carried an extra student in the back. Even in stalls, the instructors were all good with it and no issue was ever brought up about the practice.

[compressor stall]

249 Prohibition of carriage of passengers on certain flights
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft that carries a passenger must not
engage in any of the following types of flying:
(a) flying training given to a person who has not passed a general
flying progress flight test for aircraft of the category concerned;
(b) practice of emergency procedures in the aircraft;
(c) low flying practice;
(d) testing an aircraft or its components, power plant or equipment.

Will you have a forced landing in your nav? If yes, => no pax (even student pilot in the back). If no, your flying school might have other reasons (insurance) for saying no.

Stalls - well has the person under instruction passed a GFPT? If you are doing a lesson of stalls (about lesson 4/5?) then the answer will be no. This is NOT allowed. :=

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I took my (then) girlfriend on a couple of dual Navs for my PPL - didn't seem to be any issue then (35 yrs ago) - mind you, I think my Instructor found her to be quite a decorative addition to the crew!

Stalls (?) and forced landings (?) on a nav? I don't think so! The flights were focused on nav training.

Dr :8

[Peter Fanelli]

When a student backseats a flight, they are not considered a passenger, rather apart of the operating crew. Usually companies can get away with them being on watch for traffic or something similar.


I'd love to see that stand up in a court of law, in Australia at least.

Might be different here in the USA where you can be riding in the back seat during a crash and later be deemed by the court to be pilot in command.

[djpil]

The student is focussed on nav training so its the ideal time for a practice forced landing - real ones usually never happen per the pre-flight brief. And, for those operating from busy airfields near residential areas, a good opportunity for the occasional EFATO.

[BPH63]

Stalls (?) and forced landings (?) on a nav? I don't think so! The flights were focused on nav training.

we did this in my primary training. Isn't it becoming part of the new scenario based training coming into vogue where from day one of ab initio its a cross country with basic training/maneuvers practised on the hop so to speak?

[VH-XXX]

Stalls with passengers? Next you'll be wanting to do asymetrical engine failures with passengers. Where would it end?

Not the best of ideas, legal or not.

[djpil]

When I was a young lad I was invited along to be ballast in an Aztec. I wasn't impressed by the trees going past as it tried to climb on one engine. If I only knew then what I knew now!
That instructor was later killed in an aircraft accident, doing something different down low.

Perhaps this subject should've been included with the article on airmanship in the Nov-Dec issue of Flight Safety magazine.

[Icarus53]

Stalls with passengers? Next you'll be wanting to do asymetrical engine failures with passengers. Where would it end?

Not that I consider it to be a good idea, but when I was training in the US, none of this was a problem. I specifically remember doing VMCA demonstration and recovery with a spare bod in the back whilst doing final preparation for my multi Engine check flight (the video he shot is a little disconcerting!) I also took pax on Navs etc.

Just goes to show that while one culture may scream "No, No, No", others may not have a problem at all.

[bushy]

It has been common practise for decades to carry other students in the back when doing navex's. in fact it was common to take a number of students on an extended navex to destinations like Alice Springs or Ayers Rock. A scenic flight to places they had never seen before. They took it in turns to occupy the left seat with the instructor in the right and other students in the back. I think this was valuable training.
The rules say you cannot do it but it was common practice.. The rules are really there to protect the government from any legal liability and they do that. Sometimes to the detriment of flying operations.
But there are exceptions. Rules that are not practical will not be effective. There are many Written exceptions to the rules, and we have to watch these to make sure our esteemed regulator is not using them to give a commercial advantage to any one operator.
Other exceptions (illegal ones??) are rules that are not practical, and often there are many interpretations of what a particular rule means. Often line pilots, instructors and FOI's have different ideas of what a rule means. I once asked a senior CASA man about a particular rule, and he replied "legal opinion is divided about that." That should not be. But the rules are still there to protect the government and, may be used for that purpose.

[Atlas Shrugged]

249 Prohibition of carriage of passengers on certain flights
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft that carries a passenger must not
engage in any of the following types of flying:


My bolding.

How is this interpreted? "The PIC" and "must not engage" are the key words.

On the assumption that the instructor is PIC and the GFPT is "pilot flying", for want of a better expression, it may well come down to who is engaging/performing the actual manoeuver?

The pilot flying? If so, it would seem to be within the regs, provided he is appropriately licensed (GFPT), not performing any EMERGENCY manoeuver, PRACTICING low flying or TESTING the plant or any component of the aircraft.

Now, if the EMERGENCY manoeuvre, low flying PRACTICE or any plant or component TESTING is first demonstrated by the instructor (PIC) then it will be against the regs as at the time the manoeuver is performed it will have been engaged by the PIC.......now my little brain hurts!

This is one of many reasons why we have the courts and we, insurance companies, operators, et al all will abide by their decisions. I wonder if this or similar scenario has been tested yet?

[43Inches]

The rules are written to protect 'passengers' that are not aware of the possible risks involved with practicing such sequences. There have been a number of accidents world wide and in aus with relation to practiced abnormal/emergency situations hence a perceived increase in risk. Once a student holds a GFPT they have reached a minimum standard of ability which would guarantee stable handling abilities and they can carry pax both dual or solo in normal ops. This is different to a student who is observing a sequence from a passenger seat, which the ops manual should have entries detailing conditions for the carriage of, and they become operating crew.

Atlas - who is flying is not rellevent, the PIC is resposible ultimately and is considered the instigator of such actions. An instructor monitoring a student is similar to monitoring the autopilot, the autopilot does not become responsible when it is connected to the controls. To knowingly allow something to happen whilst PIC is as good as doing it yourself, unless its done against the will of the PIC, then its a serious breach of law. Where it becomes sticky is when instructors authorise solo flights etc... then who is responsible for the outcome may become debatable.

[The Green Goblin]

My understanding is that you are able to, provided you have passed the GFPT :ok:

[Hasselhof]

Where it becomes sticky is when instructors authorise solo flights etc... then who is responsible for the outcome may become debatable.

Sort of but not really. While there might be some parts of the CAR's / CAO's that could apply to the instructor (who isn't PIC on a solo flight... obviously), they still have a duty of care in relation to their student so an action of negligence would still be very much on the cards (and probably far easier a path to go down than trying to get the courts to apply decisions based solely on CASA reglation empowered through the Civil Aviation Act) if the duty of care is breached and damage is caused. btw, IANAL

[Lasiorhinus]

Green Gorilla et al,

With all due respect, what your understanding is, is of less importance than what the rules actually say.

CAR 5.72
May an instructor permit a student to carry passengers while
flying as pilot in command?
(1) An authorised flight instructor must not permit a student pilot to fly as
pilot in command of an aircraft in which a passenger is carried.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
(3) It is a defence to a prosecution under subregulation (1) if:
(a) the flight takes place solely within the student pilot area limit;
and
(b) the student pilot has passed a general flying progress flight test,
and a basic aeronautical knowledge examination, for aircraft of
the category used for the flight.

For normal passengers, the flight must remain within the student pilot area limit, ie, not a cross country navigation flight.

CAR 5.73
May an instructor permit a student to carry other students
while flying as pilot in command?
(1) An authorised flight instructor must not permit a student pilot to fly as
pilot in command of an aircraft in which another student pilot is a
member of the aircraft’s operating crew if each of the following
requirements is not satisfied:
(a) some part of the flight takes place outside the student pilot area
limit;
(b) the student pilot has flown at least 5 hours of cross-country flight
time as pilot in command of an aircraft of the category used for
the flight;
(c) the student pilot’s most recent cross-country flight as pilot in
command of an aircraft of the category used for the flight was
undertaken as the sole occupant of the aircraft.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.


Specific provision is made in the regulations for other students, who are not classed as passengers. Provided the student (-in-command) has at least 5 hours cross country time as PIC, and their most recent cross country flight as PIC was without any other students, then they may carry another student.


When in doubt, go to the rules. There's too many people in this industry believing things, and proclaiming them as fact, when all they're basing it on, is that "my instructor once said...".

[Lasiorhinus]

But further to my post above, sometimes the rules make no sense at all.

CAO 40.1.0

10.3 The holder of a student pilot licence may log as time in command only that time during which he or she is the sole occupant of an aeroplane in flight.

So, a student pilot, who has passed a GFPT, and is carrying a passenger on a local flight in the student pilot area limit, as they are legally permitted to do so, must not log any of that flight time as 'in command'. It's certainly not Dual, ICUS, or CoPilot time, either, so according to the rules, the time can't be logged...

10.4 The holder of a private pilot (aeroplane) licence may log as time in command only that time during which he or she is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aeroplane.

So, two PPL holders go flying together, and midway through the flight, the PIC asks the other second pilot to 'manipulate the controls' for a while, so the first pilot can eat lunch. During this time, the sole manipulator of the controls is the second pilot, but the first pilot is ultimately responsible for the flight. So does the second pilot log the 0.2 hours that it took the first pilot to eat lunch? Does the first pilot relinquish those 0.2 hours because they were not manipulating the controls?

CAR 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 give up - time for a very strong drink. :uhoh:

[pjam]

Lasiorhinus,

You're looking at the wrong regs in respect to the original posters question. He asks whether a passenger can be carried on a dual flight once the trainee pilot has passed the GFPT, in which case the instructor is pilot in command not the trainee.

The regs detailed in post number 5 give the answer. The two points of interest however, are the definitions of both the emergency procedures and low flying.

Here's an interpretation - provided you're not below 500 feet AGL (normal VFR requirement over non-poplulated area) then are you conducting a low flying operation, wouldn't have thought so. Given that, if your instructor elects to have you practice a descent at idle power whilst conducting a couple of drills, with the descent in question not below 500 AGL, I'd be hard pressed to argue it's a practice forced landing since theres no landing involved and it doesen't even sound like an emergency procedure...

On the other hand, if your instructor pulls the engine and makes you land in an unprepared paddock, then you've conducted both emergency procedure practice and low flying, definitely no pax allowed on that one.

I like the CAO 40.1.0 - 10.3 that you've pointed out, that's a classic but there's surely a contradictory regulation somewhere else that will cover it. :ugh: