Manipulation of controls

[PA28jockey]

Can anyone clear up a point for me? I always understood that PPLs could NOT allow their friends a "shot" at the controls and the only people who could legally allow an unlicensed person to manipulate the controls are instructors. This view was recently challenged by some PPLs who have asked me to prove it! I can't find anything on the CAA ensure to this effect. Have I bothered to become a CPL and FI all for nothing?

[TheOddOne]

Why not take the view that the person who has flown with the PPL might just get enthused enough to come to you as a student? If they want to learn to fly, then they'll have to do a proper course; that's where you come in. Don't get jealous about other people showing them how it works. Just ask your new students if they've ever flown an a/c before. If they say 'yes', just be aware that you'll probably have to 'un-teach' what they did before and get them in to good habits. Bite your tongue when you hear of other people doing things, treat them as potential customers.
Above all, enjoy your instructing, it's hard work but can be very rewarding (but not financially!)

TOO

[Duchess_Driver]

And of course, any training counted towards the grant or renewal of a licence needs to be completed through an ATO, by an approved instructor and documented as such both in training records and logbooks.

That approved course will have a stipulated minimum training requirement (for PPL that's 45 hours) of said 'approved training'.

[BillieBob]

It all turns on whether, by manipulating the controls of an aircraft, one is "acting as a pilot". ANO Article 50 prohibits anyone from acting as a pilot of an aircraft without holding a licence; Articles 52 and 53 then provide exemptions for solo and dual flying training respectively, both of which require the involvement of a person who holds a flying instructor qualification.

Since the CAA declines to commit itself on this, as on so much else these days, the meaning of "acting as a pilot" will probably only ever be determined in a court of law following an incident or accident. The opinion of individual pilots is pretty much worthless in this respect and so the arguments will doubtless continue.

[TheOddOne]

the meaning of "acting as a pilot" will probably only ever be determined in a court of law following an incident or accident.

Exactly. The fact that this has never to my knowledge come to court in the UK means that we seem to have 'got it right' without interference from the CAA. I'm guessing most PPLs when taking friends for a ride in an a/c with dual controls let them 'have a go' without accident or incident.

I do seem to recall the total loss of an Airbus A310 in Russia years ago when the captain let his son 'have a go' but a Cessna 150 is rather different, I'd say!

TOO

[Whopity]

There is nothing illegal about letting your passenger "have a go" on a private flight. They are after all a passenger, and it doesn't count towards training for a licence, however: it may make them feel that they have acheived something by "manipulating" an aeroplane in flight.

[PURPLE PITOT]

How on earth did you manage to get a CPL and FI with such flawed knowledge of air law?

[PA28jockey]

I remember my instructor (at Oxford Air Training School) telling me this!!

[Heston]

Where's MadJock when you need him? This thread definitely needs a bit of his style of input.

[ASRAAM]

Purple Pitot,

Nice hand grenade, but it's probably a dud unless you tell us which post you were referring too!

[Mach Jump]

As BillieBob says, the situation is unclear, as 'act as pilot' will only ever be legally defined after an incident.

Personally, I agree with Whopity.

I believe that 'act as pilot' was originally intended to mean 'act as a member of the Flight Crew', and should have been written in that form.


MJ:ok:

Ps. PP I think you are being a bit harsh there, without offering any answer to the OP's question. What's your interpretation of 'act as pilot' ?

[Mach Jump]

Notwithstanding my previously stated opinion, below is the ICAO definition of 'to pilot'. There doesn't appear to be an equivalent EASA definition.



ICAO Annex 1 1.1 ICAO Definitions:

Pilot (to) - To manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft during flight time.


MJ:ok:

[Whopity]

That sounds perfectly reasonable, to manipulate the controls is to "pilot" an aeroplane however; the UK ANO only defines "Pilot in Command"
‘Pilot in command’ means a person who for the time being is in charge of the piloting of an aircraft without being under the direction of any other pilot in the aircraft;i.e their responsibility is for the "operation" of the aeroplane not just the piloting as in the EASA definition:‘Pilot-in-command’ (PIC) means the pilot designated as being in command and charged with the safe conduct of the flight..
We are so often told by Authority that there can only be one pilot in a single pilot aeroplane, which is the authorised person in charge, the PIC.

If a pasenger has a go, they are piloting in a practical sense, but they are not acting as PIC and therefore have no requirement for a licence. Nothing in the law prohibits this and unless there was an overiding safety case it is unlikely that any court would rule otherwise.

[PA28jockey]

Guys, thanks for your combined wisdom on this. It makes sense but I wonder how far you'd all be happy to go in terms of a non-instructor letting someone "have a go". Presumably, S&L at 3000' or the effect of controls at a similar ht would not be a problem, but landings or circuits might be viewed a bit differently. Where would you say the line should be drawn?

[Legalapproach]

Article 50 of the ANO provides:

Subject to paragraph (2), a person must not act as a pilot of an EASA aircraft that is registered in the United Kingdom without holding an appropriate licence granted, converted or rendered valid under the EASA Aircrew Regulation.
(2) A person may act as a pilot of an EASA aircraft without holding an appropriate licence granted, converted or rendered valid under the EASA Aircrew Regulation when undergoing flying training, including solo flying training authorised and supervised by a flight instructor, in accordance with the EASA Aircrew Regulation as amended from time to time.

ICAO Annex 1 1.1 ICAO Definitions:

Pilot (to) - To manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft during flight time.

You will note that article 50 refers to a person acting as a pilot, not pilot in command nor ‘the pilot’. You will also note that article 50 (2) makes reference to a person acting as a pilot when undergoing training, including solo flying not exclusively when flying solo.

Pulling ICAO, EASA and the ANO together, the strict interpretation is that a pilot is a person manipulating the controls of an aircraft. Such a person requires an appropriate licence unless undergoing flight training in accordance with EASA Aircrew regulation as amended from time to time. It follows that a passenger who manipulates the controls of an aircraft is acting at that time as pilot and needs to hold the appropriate valid licence unless undergoing flight training.

Whilst we know that in the real world this goes on all of the time and we have all allowed members of the family, pax etc to ‘have a go' and will doubtless continue to do so, strictly speaking it is illegal.

Whopity

the UK ANO only defines "Pilot in Command"

Yes – but Article 50 makes no reference to Pilot in Command, merely ‘a pilot’

[Whopity]

Hence Billiebob's point about only a court can deceide what it really means. This is but one small example of the ambiguities that exist within the regulation.
I recall the days when the RAF had C130s with no autopilots and the crew took it in turn to fly the long legs to Singapore and return. There were only two pilots but all the others had a long go.

[cockney steve]

I recall the days when the RAF had C130s with no autopilots and the crew took it in turn to fly the long legs to Singapore and return. There were only two pilots but all the others had a long go.

Ah, but they fly under military rules which are different, innit?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Edited for wrong content.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that you are being daft Chuck.

You are 2 years out of recency and deliberately cutting out a current pilot and instructor. If anything goes wrong, you will be creating a situation where you can just walk away, quite legally - to some extent are required to - leaving a newly qualified pilot to carry the can.

Not to mention the unhealthiness of the cockpit authority gradient. An inexperienced pilot, flying as Captain, deferring to somebody with no current licence.

I think either. .

1 Work through a current and qualified instructor, advising them but not flying.
2 Get your qualifications and currency back.
3 Don't do it.

G

[CISTRS]

Chuck,
Genghis is right.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Edited for wrong content.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Edited for wrong content.

[Mach Jump]

Hi Chuck.

I've no doubt from reading many of your previous posts, that you would make a great mentor for any new pilot.

You ask, however:

The pilot I will be teaching is current and licensed, so what exactly can go wrong that the other pilot can not fix?

The fact that both you and she agree that she needs 'mentoring' is the answer to your own question and during the 'mentoring' process, she might easily exceed her own abilities, relying on you to save the day.

I have to say that I agree with Genghis.


MJ:ok:

[Whopity]

Why not just tell her what to do and then let her go do it? She is qualified you are not! No need for you to be there!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Edited for wrong content.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I guess I should never offer any opinions on flying on these forums because I have forgotten everything I ever knew in the past two years.

Or you could simply answer the original posters question without making every thread about you. :ugh:

To answer the OP's question I would suggest that regardless of what country you are regulated by nobody is going to care if you give the passenger control in cruise flight and at a safe altitude. In fact I would recommend it, as other posters have, as a way to promote private flying. The only caveat I would make is to brief the "I have control" , "you have control" actions before giving them the airplane,

If you are not an instructor I would also suggest keeping things simple and taking care of the rudder and power controls for the passenger.

[Pull what]

Can anyone clear up a point for me? I always understood that PPLs could NOT allow their friends a "shot" at the controls and the only people who could legally allow an unlicensed person to manipulate the controls are instructors.

Since May a PPL can now legally do an 'introductory flight' at a flying school or club. There is nothing in the new regulations to prevent a passenger from manipulating the controls but as the CAA suggests there may be some restrictions that each club or school may want to incorporate into their own regulations or operations and training manual.

[Whopity]

Since May a PPL can now legally do an 'introductory flight' at a flying school or club. Which is of course a "passenger flight" and doesn't provide any answer to the origial question.

[ifitaintboeing]

Pulling ICAO, EASA and the ANO together, the strict interpretation is that a pilot is a person manipulating the controls of an aircraft. Such a person requires an appropriate licence unless undergoing flight training in accordance with EASA Aircrew regulation as amended from time to time. It follows that a passenger who manipulates the controls of an aircraft is acting at that time as pilot and needs to hold the appropriate valid licence unless undergoing flight training.

Having had the discussion about 'letting passengers have a go' with the policy department in the CAA I would agree with the above quote from Legalapproach.

ifitaint...

[Pull what]

Can anyone clear up a point for me? I always understood that PPLs could NOT allow their friends a "shot" at the controls and the only people who could legally allow an unlicensed person to manipulate the controls are instructors.So the above is not a passenger flight then. What would you call his friend then, freight, ballast, perhaps?

Anyone unlicensed person can manipulate the controls of an aircraft legally unless it is expressly forbidden in an approved document such as the pilots order book, operations manual etc..

There is nothing to stop someone on an introductory flight allowing the passenger to handle the controls and on that flight that passenger may be a complete stranger-so how would there be a problem when two friends are flying.

One assumes then if the legal eagle is correct the CAA will be bringing a case against the passenger at Humberside who did two go arounds and a landing at night after the pilot died!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Having had the discussion about 'letting passengers have a go' with the policy department in the CAA I would agree with the above quote from Legalapproach.

ifitaint...


That may be true - but I think that as a community we should not accept this sort of legalistic view.

The captain is always responsible for the safety of the flight. I really don't see value in deciding where on the scale of doorcatch, via transponder, to primary controls we draw the line and say that the passenger has become a "pilot" and so needs a licence.

In a single pilot aeroplane, except for formal instruction, only one person needs a licence - and they are the captain. Anybody else should be doing what they're told, and if their actions cause problems, it's still down to the captain.

G

[Pull what]

I really don't see value in deciding where on the scale of doorcatch, via transponder, to primary controls we draw the line and say that the passenger has become a "pilot" and so needs a licence.Exactly-if a passenger pulls out the carb air control he is manipulating the a/c contols but that doesnt make him the pilot!

[Whopity]

If you can drive a Glasgow bin lorry with a medical obtained on the basis of a false declaration I don't think anyone is likely to take action against a control manipulator.

[Parson]

Ultimately, the PIC is responsible for the safe operation of the flight. Should anything go wrong (eg infringements, near misses etc.) it would be his/her licence on the line.

If the PIC is an FI, they would obviously be able to advise from an instructor's point of view when 'giving a mate a go', but it still wouldn't be a formal lesson unless arranged as such with the usual insurances, permits etc.