Pilot In Command

[fs27]

A scenario. Two PPL holders, A and B fly together in an aircraft owned by A.

Is it OK for A to let the B manipulate the controls, and still remain pilot in command?

What if they go flying, and it turns out A did not have a valid medical? could he say B was PIC since he did at some point manipulate the controls even though the booking sheet would have A's signature as PIC?

[airpolice]

Pilot A signs for the aircraft; so he needs to be taking it back in one piece.

In the event of Pilot B overstressing the aircraft, and then he denies having touched the controls, how would Pilot A

1) Prove
2) explain
or 3) justify the course of events?

This ought to be merged with another thread running here. http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/474991-who-gets-cheesed-off-taking-fellow-pilots-up-flying.html


Short answer is that if they go flying and A signed as PIC without having a valid medical then Pilot A needs to read the Colin MacRae accident report.

[Genghis the Engineer]

A is Pilot in Command, whoever is handling the controls - if that is what was agreed and in the tech log.

In most national legal regimes, there is no reason why a passenger cannot manipulate the controls. They can't log it unless A was an instructor, and if they crashed it, A is responsible for that - so A needs to take every reasonable action to ensure that doesn't happen.

If he was flying illegally, he was flying as pilot in command illegally. But still pilot in commend.

G

[S-Works]

Troll or guilty conscience?

PIC is PIC, letting another manipulate the controls is just that. If you have flown illegally chalk it up to experience. If you are trying to cover something up good luck in getting pilot B to carry the can..

[airpolice]

Bose-x

I was thinking it looks like Pilot A wants Pilot B to say he was actually flying that trip, on the basis that A has no medical. B Agrees and all is squared away for a few days.

Then along comes the CAA man to interview Pilot B about an airspace infringemnet. Pilot B can hardly say "My defence to the charge is that I committed a different offence, that of falsifying a logbook!"

[peterh337]

I wonder who "airpolice" works for?

[airpolice]

Peter,


Myself.

[Pilot DAR]

If he was flying illegally, he was flying as pilot in command illegally. But still pilot in commend.

Though it makes sense, a friend of mine had a different experience.

He was "checking out" the new owner of an aircraft he'd just bought that day (which I had delivered the day before). My friend and the new owner flew all over that day, with my friend mostly sitting and speaking the occasional bit of guidance, but not actually flying. The bit they both missed was to check the fuel, 'cause they ran out and crashed - wrecked the plane, but not really hurt. Bad on both of them...

Turns out that the new owner did not have a valid license, but my friend did. My friend received the charge for the breach of regulation associated with running out of gas. He was the only licensed pilot aboard, and even though he was not flying, and not the PIC of record at the beginning of the flight, the government deemed him to be so at the end!

The accident should not have happened, and my friend missed the mark, but he was surprised to receive the formal punishment as PIC, when no one thought that he was PIC during the flight.

So, if you're a pilot, and you're just riding along: Actively prevent accidents and offenses, and, attempt to confirm (within the bounds of courteous behaviour) that the other pilot, is legal to be PIC!

[RTN11]

Interesting one there Pilot DAR, which country did that occour in?

As far as I was aware, if someone signed as PIC, they were responsible whatever.

So lets say if it turned out not only that pilot A didn't have a medical, but also the ARC was out of date, he would still be responsible by signing in as PIC. Are you saying pilot B could somehow be held responsible for the flight just by having a valid licence and being there for the ride? Bearing in mind in this example no accident has actually occoured.

[Kengineer-130]

Hmm, an interesting discussion! If two qualified, legal PPL's share a flight, is the LHS always PIC, with the RHS acting as a handling pilot, but the aircraft still being captined by the LHS?

Can a PPL holder legally fly from the RHS? :confused: I see no reason why not, but it has never actually crossed my mind before

[Whiskey Kilo Wanderer]

Kengineer,

A qualified PPL can fly from any seat from which they can reach all necessary controls.

In the case of aircraft like the Piper Cub, some of them are P1 from the rear seat, some from the front. In that case it depends on the particular aeroplane.

[BackPacker]

Just wanted to add that the Germans saw fit to write some specific legislation on this. From memory, absent of any paperwork that says otherwise, and two fully licensed pilots on board, the one in the LHS is the PIC.

If there's any doubt about who is PIC, remove it beforehand.

[Whopity]

Pilot A signs for the aircraft; so he needs to be taking it back in one pieceUnder UK law there is no requirement to sign for an aircraft, there is however a requirement to sign after the flight. But, we are now operating aircraft under EU Law where there seem to be different practices in every State and nobody knows where to find the rules. In many States, the Aircraft Log is not completed until after the flight, so who apart from the two pilots know who is PIC?

If one pilot is not current then he is a passenger and the answer is simple, the only legal pilot is PIC but, is there any paperwork to prove this and did he know he was PIC throughout?

This thread highlights potential issues if two pilots do fly together and share the responsibility. If something goes wrong, they may equally share the blame, and any liability that it might incur, unless they have had the foresight to document who is doing what and when before they take off.

[pulse1]

Pilot A (PPL) delivers a/c within the UK. He takes along Pilot B (ATPL). Due to fuel mismanagement the a/c crashes and CAA prosecutes Pilot B, the most experienced pilot, for running out of fuel. This is obviously much more serious for an ATPL than a PPL.

Turns out they hadn't run out of fuel and Pilot A had logged the flight as PIC so case dismissed.

A real case. The aircraft was a C337 which crash landed near the M25.

[Bealzebub]

What if they go flying, and it turns out A did not have a valid medical? Then he doesn't have a valid pilots licence either, and couldn't operate as planned PIC in any event.

[chrisN]

I don’t understand the signing out bit as PIC, and would appreciate those who know answering any or all of the following questions.

Is that always done in the UK, or only in the case of flying schools and rental arrangements? Does the law say it must? How does that go at farm strips etc.?

Is the techlog always signed to show PIC before the start of a flight? Again, does the law say it must?


I was commissioned to do a report to the BGA on PIC issues for gliding some years ago, and during the course of that I discussed several issues with the CAA and with other GA organisations.

Several GA pilots were emphatic that they could take off with one person (A, say) as PIC; and hand over to another (say B) during flight, without landing between. Each would log (in their personal logbooks) their own time as PIC. (Note – PIC is not the same as PF – AIUI, any PPL can let somebody else fly, but remain PIC. All my questions here are about PIC, not PF.) I did not think to ask, and nobody mentioned, what the “signing out” thing, whatever that is, or what the techlog, would have recorded beforehand.

At first, the CAA told me that there could only be one PIC for the whole flight. That person pointed out that in airliners, the commander was PIC for the whole flight even he was asleep and the FO(s) was/were flying it.

Later, a different CAA person led me to believe that the GA pilots’ belief was true, or at least the legislation was not sufficiently clear to rule it out. I never got to the bottom of it as far as PPLs are concerned.

In the OP’s scenario, however, if the general belief among PPLs is correct, surely A could hand over to B as PIC for any or all of the flight. (Nothing to do with PF or seat position, provided either can reach the controls from whatever seat they are in.)

So, is this what PPLs now believe? Can anyone show how the ANO (or any other legislation) in the UK allows PIC to change from one to another during flight?

And re my questions above – if it is true that either sign-out or techlog must show PIC before the flight starts, do both pilots have to be recorded beforehand as PIC for different legs (when it is planned to be one flight without an intervening landing)?

(By the way, in UK gliding, the PIC is always, AFAIK, declared before the flight and never changes. The only exception I can think of is what happens if PIC is incapacitated – and I know of no case where that arose and caused a problem.)

Chris N
(Written before the posts immediately above - I would still like law-based answers if possible.)

[fs27]

What if they go flying, and it turns out A did not have a valid medical?

Then he doesn't have a valid pilots licence either, and couldn't operate as planned PIC in any event.

But if pilot B didn't have a licence, he would simply be a passenger. If anything else happened on the flight, it would be pilot A's responsability. Is Pilot B now somehow legally responsible for being PIC just for being on board and having a licence?

Pilot A signed the booking in sheet at the airfield on arrival. Is this a legally binding document to state he was PIC?

[sherburn2LA]

obviously the solution here is to have a couple of drinks before you fly RHS with a
fellow pilot to make sure you cannot be the legal PIC.

[englishal]

I don't think it is as cut and dry as that. I have never signed for the aeroplane in my life and who signs the book in the clubhouse is whoever gets there first........

I know UK pilots like cut and dry cases but in the real world, it is never like that. Imagine another scenario - Aeroplane enters IMC. Pilot A (LHS) does not have an IR but pilot B (RHS) does.

Are people really saying that Pilot B should sit back, and relax as the aeroplane plummets to the ground because he cannot become PIC in the air? I don't think so......;)

[BackPacker]

Can anyone show how the ANO (or any other legislation) in the UK allows PIC to change from one to another during flight?

I don't know how it works legally (I personally believe it's legal and have actually done this a few times already), but I would offer that it *might* be a bad idea, depending on the circumstances.

Suppose two pilots go flying. They agree to split the PIC time and (thus) the costs. Pilot A is happily acting out his duty as commander and flies the aircraft within his personal and legal limitations. When handover time comes, B finds that the situation is actually well outside his personal comfort zone and/or his legal limitations. In other words, he finds himself painted in a corner by A. So what do you do?

It's probably the kind of discussion that you'd like to have on an internet forum or a flying club bar somewhere, but not in the air.

[mrmum]

Imagine another scenario - Aeroplane enters IMC. Pilot A (LHS) does not have an IR but pilot B (RHS) does. Are people really saying that Pilot B should sit back, and relax as the aeroplane plummets to the ground because he cannot become PIC in the air? I don't think so......;)
Of course not, PIC and handling pilot are not the same thing. No reason why A can't give B control while in IMC.

[BillieBob]

There is currently no clear requirement in law for the PIC to be nominated for a private flight, at least in the way that there is on a commercial flight. However, one of the Essential Requirements of the EU Basic Regulation (which is already EU law) is: "Before every flight, the roles and duties of each crew member must be defined. The pilot in command must be responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft and for the safety of all crew members, passengers and cargo on board." There is, therefore, a legal obligation on every aircraft operator to nominate the PIC before flight. Exactly how this is to be done may be detailed in Part-ORO, Subpart-NCO but, as yet, that hasn't been published.

Irrespective of whatever finally appears in print, in the event of an incident or accident it will be the legal responsibility of the aircraft operator to show evidence that the requirement was complied with. If there is no written record this will be difficult to do.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Of course not, PIC and handling pilot are not the same thing. No reason why A can't give B control while in IMC.

Using the best skills available for safety of the flight can be extremely sensible.

Here's a real example (the other player is a Ppruner but I'll leave it to him whether to declare himself or not). I was right hand seat - as it happens Captain and Instructor, but in the left hand seat was a PPL/owner acting as if Captain. At the end of a looooong leg, where we were aiming into a fiddly strip, he went around three times and was clearly struggling to get it in. I suggested politely that I took control, he agreed, and I landed it. That was the right thing to do for the safety of the flight - and it would have been no less right if he'd been Captain, which he was qualified to be.

G

[englishal]

Of course not, PIC and handling pilot are not the same thing. No reason why A can't give B control while in IMC.
But (to play devil's advocate)...if A gives the controls to B then A is no longer the "sole manipulator of the controls" and in a single pilot aeroplane can no longer log PIC. If they can no longer log PIC then logic dictates that they are no longer PIC. As B is the sole manipulator of the controls, then B actually becomes Pilot In Command of a single pilot aeroplane. Explain that one.....;)

[sherburn2LA]

If Pilot A were to declare an emergency due to entering IMC then he would be entitled to depart from the rules of the air in order to deal with that emergency which would include presumably giving control to Pilot B even if his license was not current. Who could enter it in their log book would probably not seem important.

[chrisN]

Englishal, where does "sole manipulator of the controls" come from?


Are you confusing PF and PIC?

I see no reference to sole manipulator of the controls in the ANO section as follows:


“Pilot to remain at controls and be secured in seat
93[snip]
(2) The commander of an aircraft to which this article applies must cause one pilot to remain at the
controls at all times while it is in flight.”
[snip]

Chris N

[englishal]

So now we're declaring emergencies for a non event!...Isn't this getting a bit ridiculous?

[mrmum]

englishal
Why do you think you have to be "sole manipulator of the controls" to be the pilot-in-command of a SPA? You're going to have to quote a reference (from the devil) for me to go along with that one.
I would think virtually every PPL holder, has taken up friends and family, then given them a go at the controls. Nothing wrong with that, not illegal, don't need to be an instructor, if it's not used towards the requirements for a licence or rating.
Every flight I do as a FI, I'm PIC of a SPA, but never "sole manipulator of the controls".

[mrmum]

As to declaring emergencies, yes that's perhaps getting away from a realistic scenario for this. However, A is perfectly entitled to declare an emergency, at any time he feels it appropriate. In that case A could ignore any rule he wished
ANO PART 22 AIRCRAFT IN FLIGHT Rules of the Air
160 (3) It is lawful for the Rules of the Air to be departed from to the extent necessary:
(a) for avoiding immediate danger;
However, A doesn't need to do that to let B take control, if A deems that to be the safest course of action.

[Pilot DAR]

I would think virtually every PPL holder, has taken up friends and family, then given them a go at the controls. Nothing wrong with that, not illegal,

In Canada doing so would not be legal...

The definitions:

A person is either a:

"flight crew member" - means a crew member assigned to act as pilot or flight engineer of an aircraft during flight time

or a:

"passenger" - means a person, other than a crew member, who is carried on board an aircraft;

(no middle ground on that)

Then...

401.03(1) Subject to subsection (2), no person shall act as a flight crew member or exercise the privileges of a flight crew permit, licence or rating unless
(a) the person holds the appropriate permit, licence or rating;
(b) the permit, licence or rating is valid;
(c) the person holds the appropriate medical certificate; and
(d) the person can produce the permit, licence or rating, and the certificate, when exercising those privileges .

Some time ago I was read the riot act by a Transport Canada inspector for letting my buddy fly the 182RG he owned (and worse 'cause I let him fly left seat) after he had his medical suspended. TC and I agreed to disagree, 'cause there was no way they could prove their accusation, but I got the warning....

The person with the license flies the plane

Now I'm not saying that I abide by that regulation all the time, but it is written....

[peterh337]

Interesting...

Here in Europe, a common "scheme" seems to be that a PPL embarks on a VFR flight, but carries a passenger in the RHS who has an IR, and this enables them to request an IFR clearance should they need one due to weather etc.

I always thought this was dodgy unless the passenger was provided for by the insurance (e.g. named on the policy) because the evidence trail is clearly present (ATC tapes) on who was PIC, so if there was a prang on landing, the LHS would cross his fingers and hope that nobody pulls the tapes...

Whereas if you just let a passenger fly the plane for a bit (which frankly everybody does, sometimes) there is no evidence trail.

More importantly, in the event of a prang in which everybody but the said passenger gets killed, the passenger does not have a financial incentive to admitting that he was effectively PIC after all, and this is vital because people will make up all kinds of stories if they can get a bigger personal injury payout, and under the UK Civil Aviation Act passenger liability hangs on the establishment of pilot negligence.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The illegality of passengers handling the controls in Canada has been raised before. The fact is however, Canada is in a small minority - in most countries it is not illegal.

G

[WestWind1950]

after a deadly accident where the PIC was not 100% clear, Germany changed it's laws, as mentioned before. Still this subject gets discussed constantly.

Basically, PIC is the pilot flying in the seat that the plane manual declares as the seat for flying solo. If that is not defined, then PIC is the LHS in most planes, RHS for helicopters, front seat for most gliders (as I said, plane manual determines otherwise). The exception is of course training flights where the instructor in the RHS is then PIC.

[24Carrot]

In post 8, Pilot DAR said:
... but he was surprised to receive the formal punishment as PIC, when no one thought that he was PIC during the flight.

Let me see if I understand this Canadian thing.

I catch an Air Canada flight from Heathrow to Toronto. There I am, a passenger, happily sipping a G&T or three.

Now, if the two guys/gals up front are behind on their paperwork, and no other PPLs are on board, according to Transport Canada I become PIC!:uhoh:

This must be my only chance of becoming an airline Captain!:D

[Whopity]

Here in Europe, a common "scheme" seems to be that a PPL embarks on a VFR flight, but carries a passenger in the RHS who has an IR, and this enables them to request an IFR clearance should they need one due to weather etc.But only the qualified pilot can legal fly the aeroplane under IFR unless undergoing instructionFCL.600 IR — General
Operations under IFR on an aeroplane, helicopter, airship or powered-lift aircraft shall only be conducted by holders of a PPL, CPL, MPL and ATPL with an IR appropriate to the category of aircraft or when undergoing skill testing or dual instruction.

[mrmum]

Pilot DAR
Sorry I should have perhaps qualified my comment with a reference to the UK, we do sometimes forget that things differ in other countries, although it's interesting to find out. However the OP is in the UK, so I thought that perhaps set the scene a bit for their stated scenario.

[chrisN]

On various matters, this is where I come out for the UK. As it is a long post, I state my conclusions first, and quote the UK ANO bits at the end. I am a bit disappointed that previous posters have not answered all the points in my post number 16, so what is here is my own interpretation for those gaps. Please feel free to correct, with legal quotes, anything I have wrong.
------------------
Signing out as PIC: no legal requirement to do so.

Techlog to show PIC before the start of a flight: no legal requirement to do so.

In GA power: take off with one person (A, say) as PIC; and hand over to another (say B) during flight, without landing between: permitted (Note 1 below).

Each would log (in their personal logbooks) their own time as PIC. (Note – PIC is not the same as PF.)

AIUI, any PPL can let somebody else fly, but remain PIC. (Note 2 below)

If a second (licensed) pilot is on board, and has access to sufficient controls, he/she can if they agree take over as PIC. If they do not so agree, they cannot be made to. (See Note 3 below).

This does not preclude them taking over anyway, e.g. in case of incapacity, or to save their own skin under the general exemption for emergency covered by the ANO.

In UK gliding, the ANO exempts gliders from some of the above. I do not propose to dwell any more on that in this post.
------------------
Note 1, re A as PIC handing over to B as PIC during flight, without landing between.

My conclusion is drawn partly from the ANO, and partly from the general UK law principle that something is permitted if not specifically forbidden.

First, this is not permitted for public transport:
“Public transport – operator’s responsibilities in relation to crew

95.—(1) The operator of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom must not permit the aircraft to fly for the purpose of public transport without first designating from among the flight
crew a pilot to be the commander of the aircraft for the flight.”

Second, I can find no similar limitation for private flights as in most GA. Therefore, PIC can change during flight for the latter.

Each would log (in their personal logbooks) their own time as PIC. (Note – PIC is not the same as PF.)
-----------------

Note 2, re any PPL can let somebody else fly, but remain PIC.

The PPL must remain at the controls:

“PART 6

Flight Crew Licensing - Requirement for Licence

Requirement for appropriate licence to act as member of flight crew of aircraft registered in United Kingdom

50.—(1) Subject to the exceptions set out in articles 51 to 60, a person must not act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom without holding an appropriate
licence granted or rendered valid under this Order.”


But nothing here or elsewhere that I can find precludes allowing a non-flight crew member (i.e. a passenger) also being at the (duplicate) controls, as long as the PIC can keep control too.

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

Note 3, re a second (licensed) pilot is on board, and their responsibilities.

If they do not agree to act at some point as a member of the flight crew before the flight begins, they cannot be made to. I am sure that UK common law or something precludes anybody being forced to undertake a responsibility like this if they have not so agreed first.
Furthermore, if such a second licensed pilot is present, and has the same or more qualifications as the nominated PIC, that is fine. The second person does not have to be a member of the flight crew, regardless of how highly qualified they are.

If they agree to be part of the flight crew they do not have to be PIC (e.g. they could be radio operator), again regardless of how highly qualified they are.

If they agree to be PIC for part of the flight, they can. This covers the case of the IR person becoming PIC when the original non-IR pilot is approaching IMC. The changeover should be before IMC is entered, if foreseeable. If not foreseeable, it is an emergency and the usual exemption applies anyway.

----------------
Chris N

[Fuji Abound]

But only the qualified pilot can legal fly the aeroplane under IFR unless undergoing instruction


Where does it say so? Leaving aside the old IFR but in VMC chestnut, obviously the aircraft should only be in IMC with an instrument qualified pilot on board, but I dont see that the instrument qualified pilot is not entitled to let the non instrument qualified pilot "steer" without him being under instruction?

With regards to this and the earlier case I am not sure that the "qualified" pilot by definition must "carry the can". I think the can carrier needs the service of a good barrister.

Two pilots set off together and clearly agree that pilot A is PIC. Pilot A enters IMC, but is not qualified to do so, and there is an accident. Pilot B is instrument qualified but didnt know pilot A wasnt. It would be quite ridiculous for pilot B to be liable, any more than if it turned out pilot A's medical or license had expired. The key would be whether or not it could be demonstrated who was in command, or who was most likely to have been in command. Obviously this could prove difficult if both pilots disagreed as to who was in command, or they died. However, while not conclusive, who was in the LHS would be significant. Were I the judge if the charge was the pilot in the RHS was in command I would want to see some reasonable evidence that the RHS pilot was accustom to flying the aircraft from the RHS and some reason as to why he was so seated (assuming of course this was not a student instructor scenario). On the whole it is rare for RHS command in private flights however it might be so argued retrospectively and almost always in my experience the pilots would have had some good reason for the RHS pilot being in command if that is what they had itended.

If you find yourself in command in the RHS then make the arrangement very clear and be prepared to "carry the can" if anything goes wrong. If you are in the LHS and think you are not in command make very certain the other pilot knows he is in command and is qualified to be so.

[chrisN]

Fuji, I suspect it is arguable.

On the one hand, if a PPL can let a non PPL handle the controls provided the PPL still has controls and can override, why would that not also apply in IMC? It might come down to a court having to rule whether the extra risks of loss of control in IMC make it somewhere on the scale between injudicious (not necessarily illegal?) and reckless endangerment (which is illegal).

The ANO says this:

“Flight crew licence requirement – Exception for dual flying training

53.—(1) A person may act as pilot of an aircraft of which the flight crew required to be carried by or under this Order is not more than one pilot for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant or renewal of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion or variation of any rating in a pilot’s licence within the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, without being the holder of an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under this Order, if the conditions in paragraph (2) are satisfied.

(2) The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are that—

(a) the aircraft is not flying for the purpose of commercial air transport, public transport or aerial work other than aerial work which consists of the giving of instruction in flying or the conducting of flying tests;

(b) the person acts in accordance with instructions given by another person holding a pilot’s licence granted under this Order or a JAA licence, in each case being a licence which includes a flight instructor rating, a flying instructor’s rating or an assistant flying instructor’s rating entitling that other person to give instruction in flying the type of aircraft being flown;” [snip]



The fact that this is the only exclusion to “act as pilot” (not PIC, just a pilot) suggests that no other exclusion is permitted, so only a IR-instructor can let a non-IR licensed other person fly in IMC unless a court rules it is not dangerous. IMHO. But I am not a lawyer – where are they when you need one?

Chris N.

[Whopity]

Where does it say so?JAR-FCL 1.175 which is a condition of JAA licence issue see ANO Schedule 7. And in my quote from EASA Part FCL.600 which will be law shortly and overide the ANO.

[Rod1]

It is quite common for NPPL pilot owners to take a “full” PPL in the RHS. The NPPL can than fly to the FIR boundary and then allow the full PPL to finish the flight in French airspace. The RHS PPL is on the insurance and qualified to fly the aircraft. Provided both pilots have satisfied themselves that the flight can be conducted safely and agreed what is going to happen I am not aware of any law preventing this. No signatures in the log until after the flight. I am fairly sure that at least one of these flights was ramp checked by the French and all was said to be OK. (I was at the same airfield at the same time this was going on).

What I did not ask at the time was what it said on the flight plan, which had gone “missing” and was the reason for the check in the first place.

Rod1

[englishal]

The way I look at this is:

If you are rated to fly the aeroplane and current on class, then you CAN be PIC at any point during the flight. If you are either not rated or not current then you cannot be PIC at all.

Therefore if pilot A is rated to fly in VMC and is flying the leg and pilot B has an IR but is passenger, then the minute the aeroplane enters the could then A cannot remain PIC but B *can* become PIC (which would be the most prudent course of action)....without any signatures etc. I guess the same applies to an NPPL flying to France, but should be talked about beforehand.

With a non PPL PAX, the same applies. They are not rated to fly the aeroplane so therefore can never be PIC, and pilot A remains PIC (as you have to have a PIC onboard!...in most circumstances!). There are not well defined rules to cover this, only from the viewpoint of logging the time - the pax cannot log anything, therefore Pilot A should log PIC, and it would be reasonable to assume that they are indeed PIC.

It is different for FI's as they will be PIC during a flight but of course then Pilot A cannot also be PIC but can log PUT....unless in the USA where by the FI logs "as flight instructor" and the qualified PPL as PIC.

Don't get too hung up on PIC, just agree beforehand what you are going to do. If Pilot A decides to fly in cloud then they are a prat unless they had previously agreed with pilot B that in those circumstances B would then be in command.

I've flown with non IR'd pilots that way and (depending who they are) am happy to monitor the flight from the RHS while they make could breaks, but with the understanding that if they start to get out of shape, I'll take control.

What was the original question?! :}

[peterh337]

It is clearly legal - insurance permitting - for two people to go up in a single crew aircraft, and swap over the PIC duty in any way they agree between themselves, and log it accordingly.

It would not make practical sense to enforce a prior "PIC" designation which must last for the entire leg, takeoff to landing.

If anybody tries to enforce a law which says differently, it isn't going to work, and whatever people do now they will continue to do.

One difference, I guess, will be that if A and B share the flight in a plane owned by A, but B ends up having (to comply with some law) to log it, then A will want to charge B some money because B's logbook has got the benefit. Unless of course A is not interested in logging time. In any case, they can straighten up the expense sharing after the flight :)

Unless there is a prang, with only one of the two surviving, but that situation can occur anyway, today.

[ShyTorque]

On the whole it is rare for RHS command in private flights however it might be so argued retrospectively and almost always in my experience the pilots would have had some good reason for the RHS pilot being in command if that is what they had itended.

If you find yourself in command in the RHS then make the arrangement very clear and be prepared to "carry the can" if anything goes wrong. If you are in the LHS and think you are not in command make very certain the other pilot knows he is in command and is qualified to be so.

As was previously pointed out, the OP said "aircraft", not aeroplane, so do bear in mind that helicopters are normally flown from the RHS, with one or two exceptions.

Regarding who is in charge of an aircraft or not, this report brings home how badly things can go wrong when one pilot assumes that the other might be in charge, or not.... a complete can of worms which resulted in tragedy:

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Piper%20PA-28-140%20Cherokee,%20G-BBBK%2012-07.pdf

[chrisN]

I can see nothing in the ANO that specifies which seat a PIC should be in – normally or with exceptions. If there is something, please tell me where.

Chris N.

[ShyTorque]

You are more likely to find it in the Flight Manual.

[chrisN]

AFAIK, tandem gliders with dual controls have flight manuals making it clear that PIC can be in either front or back when flown 2 up.

Is that normally/often true for tandem power aircraft such as RF5, Supercub, etc.?

I believe it is also true for side-by-side 2-seat gliders if controls are duplicated or central, i.e. either pilot can reach all.

Same question re power planes.

Chris N.

[BillieBob]

It would not make practical sense to enforce a prior "PIC" designation which must last for the entire leg, takeoff to landing.Neither is that what Part-ORO requires, it simply says that the roles must be defined before take-off. There is nothing to prevent designating one pilot as PIC for one part of the flight and another pilot for the remainder (or any other division of time that you like).

[Fuji Abound]

Whopity - i dont follow, i didnt think it had been suggested the pilot was relinquishing command merely letting the other person wiggle the stick.

There is a huge difference. If the passenger merely places a hand on the stick following the pilot is this illegal? If the pilot takes his hand off the control does that make it any more or less legal? If the ap is on and the passengers places a hand on the yoke are his actions illegal? Silly examples perhaps but the commander is the commander and in all the debates past and doubtless future nothing has changed because he allows a passenger to handle the yoke.

Thats my feeling at any rate.

[niceday2700classic]

I was always taught that it was a good idea to keep the number of take-offs and landings in your logbook the same ;-)

If you change PIC in the air...

[fs27]

I have now looked through the POH for the PA28, C172 and C152, and none say anything about where the PIC should sit. As far as I can see none even state that the PIC needs to be on the left hand seat when solo, so a solo flight from the RHS could be acceptable.

The ANO also doesn't state anything about seating position or manipulating the controls when it defines pilot in command.

Can anyone point me to any reference in the POH of a typical american spam can that the PIC should be on the left?

[mm_flynn]

But only the qualified pilot can legal fly the aeroplane under IFR unless undergoing instruction
Where does it say so? Leaving aside the old IFR but in VMC chestnut, obviously the aircraft should only be in IMC with an instrument qualified pilot on board, but I don’t see that the instrument qualified pilot is not entitled to let the non instrument qualified pilot "steer" without him being under instruction?

The original context implied the case was Pilot A (holding a PPL) acting as PIC brings along Pilot B (specified in the example as a passenger holding a PPL-IR) with the plan that the non-rated pilot can now ask for and accept an IFR clearance.

I think it is very clear that Pilot A is flying outside the privileges of their licence once they accept an IFR clearance. However, if Pilot B becomes PIC at this point, then it is perfectly OK (in most countries) for Pilot B to allow Pilot A (now no different than a passenger) to handle the controls.

I did something very similar bringing my aircraft back from the States. I flew most of the sector and was in the left hand seat for the crossings. However, my ferry pilot (who was necessary for insurance) was the PIC and was nominated on the flight plan as such.

fs27,

Probably the only 'typical' spam cans with a requirement to be flown from the LHS are aircraft with brakes only on the LHS or flown under IFR when all (or an essential - like the annunciators on an RNAV apporach system) the instruments are on the LHS and it would be impractical/unsafe to operate from the RHS.

[BackPacker]

fs27, in tandem seating aircraft flown solo, the sole occupant (and thus, the PIC) may have to sit in a certain seat due to W&B issues. For side by side seating, if all controls and instruments can be manipulated/seen from both seats, it typically doesn't matter, as said before.

[dont overfil]

Instructors who P1 from the RHS in PA28s. Can you reach the fuel selector?

D.O.

[S-Works]

Instructors who P1 from the RHS in PA28s. Can you reach the fuel selector?


Yes and with certain students it is a pleasure, with others.... not so much.... :p

[welkyboy]

Yes or get the pupil to change tanks. Perfectly normal operation on any flight

[mrmum]

Yes, it's a little bit of a stretch and you sometimes have to nudge the student out of the way though.