Would you allow a passenger to 'have a go' on the controls?

[Jim59]

This post is deliberately vague to disidentify the event in question since it's not really pertinent to the main point. I had no involvement.

Following the accident, in which nobody was injured, the loss adjuster (LA) interviewed the pilot (not an instructor) and passenger from the single engine light aeroplane. By all accounts the LA was a friendly outgoing chap and chatted to quite a few other people before leaving. The LA determined from 'loose tongues' that the passenger (a qualified pilot but not listed as a pilot on the syndicate’s insurance policy) had, for at least part of the flight, handled the controls. Consequently the insurer voided the policy leaving the pilot liable for life-changing amounts of money to her/his syndicate partners and others.

Have you ever allowed a passenger, qualified or otherwise, to handle the controls on an SEP whilst you are PIC? If so would you do it again?

[Sam Rutherford]

Frequently.

Interesting story though - do you know if there was any link between the uninsured pilot's actions and the accident?

I would like to think that, if not, the insurer's refusal to pay out could be challenged...?

[Jan Olieslagers]

Yes and yes. One can of course always misjudge - but someone I'd not trust to temporarily take the stick would not be a welcome guest at all.

[Centrex]

I sometimes allowed passengers to take the controls when it was safe to do so, until a women with limited English took the controls after I briefed her by saying " Do not touch the controls". She must have thought I was saying "touch the controls". Lucky in this instance we were still on the ground. After this I was much more discerning.

[Whopity]

I really don't think this is anything to do with a passenger being allowed to touch the controls; it is about a pilot who is not on the insurance being allowed to fly a syndicate aircraft for which he was not insured. A bit like letting someone drive your car without being insured. The outcome is fairly obvious. No doubt there was intent prior to departure.
Allowing someone to operate the controls does not make them a pilot, they remain a passenger, any instruction given to them by a non instructor means they are not even a student pilot. Two factors need to be considered here; the pilot remains responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft and must not let the passenger do anything that might place that in doubt. If something happened that occasioned the requirement for insurance, did it have anything to do with the passenger touching the controls, if so then you have overstepped the mark and if not how would anyone ever know? I have seen passengers hang onto the control column when trying to adjust their seat, I believe there was a PA28 accident a few years ago involving exactly that. In any event this should have been included in the passenger brief.
Letting a passenger handle the controls is not the same as leting another pilot fly the aircraft. The latter is a much more risky business especially for the inexperienced and in particular when only named pilots are covered by the insurance.

[Sam Rutherford]

A bit like letting someone drive your car without being insured.

To my mind, if the accident occurs during this period, then insurance won't pay out. If, though, the accident occurs afterwards (with insured in control), then surely insurance should cover.

Or it's not that simple?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Pretty much every pilot I know has allowed passengers to "have a go" in a light aircraft, but it never detracts from the commander's responsibility for the safety of the aeroplane.

I suspect that the disidentified incident may be a bit more complex than being relayed. For example, was it a landing accident where the passenger was handling? Or was there a specific clause in syndicate rules?

G

[BackPacker]

PIC means Pilot-In-Command, not Pilot-In-Control. It's perfectly fine to let a passenger have a go at the controls, as long as the PIC remains in command.

I volunteer for a Dutch charity where we do almost 1000 flights with chronically ill and handicapped children annually, with the express goal of letting the kids feel they're pilot for a day. Including letting them have a go at the controls. Obviously the PIC does the take-off, climb and establishes (trims) the aircraft for the cruise. But the kid can then fly the rest of the flight under the guidance (control) of the PIC. Until the time comes to start the descent for landing. That's when the PIC takes over the controls again. This is well known inside the Netherlands to both the authorities and the insurance companies. No problem whatsoever.

[BrogulT]

This post is deliberately vague to disidentify the event in question since it's not really pertinent to the main point. I had no involvement.

Following the accident, in which nobody was injured, the loss adjuster (LA) interviewed the pilot (not an instructor) and passenger from the single engine light aeroplane. By all accounts the LA was a friendly outgoing chap and chatted to quite a few other people before leaving. The LA determined from 'loose tongues' that the passenger (a qualified pilot but not listed as a pilot on the syndicate’s insurance policy) had, for at least part of the flight, handled the controls. Consequently the insurer voided the policy leaving the pilot liable for life-changing amounts of money to her/his syndicate partners and others.

Have you ever allowed a passenger, qualified or otherwise, to handle the controls on an SEP whilst you are PIC? If so would you do it again?

No, because first I've rarely had the opportunity, second my passengers had no real desire to do so and third, my rental agreements IIRC all specifically prohibited this. Now, as for the legal issues others are referring to, just get it through you heads that if there is a major insurance claim at hand, your insurance agent, adjuster and company are no longer your friends and you are no longer their customer--you are the enemy. Anything over a few 100K and they will go into full combat mode to avoid paying you. Lawyer up immediately!

[Pilot DAR]

I will happily let a passenger fly in non critical phases of flight. If the passenger flying the plane actually creates a hazard, which even remotely causes an accident/insurance claim, the pilot really missed something!

My heart was warmed many years back, as every year I would take my plane to the fly in corn roast. I would take every kid who wanted to go, flying, and let them fly. Sometimes it was thirty kids, I'd be at it all afternoon, to dusk. Then one year a charming young lady presented herself, and as I took her, she explained that I had taken her years earlier, and she liked it so much, that she joined air cadets, and earned both her glider and powered license, and had joined the armed forces, and was in advanced pilot training. I'd started a pilot on her path!

So, yes, I'll let people fly, particularly kids, to inspire them....

[megan]

A heart warming story DAR, that is exactly the sort of thing that encourages youth, it used to be a cockpit visit on an airliner set the thirst, but no longer alas. In my case is was the dining at our house of the company pilots over many, many years, and allowing a spotty teenager to fly the company F-27 from the left seat in the cruise and indulge in a few turns.

[ZFT]

I was 9 or 10 years old when I handled the controls of a Tri Pacer at Denham.

That wonderful man has cost me thousands and I don't begrudge a penny and am still willingly 'wasting' my money and will do as long as my mind and body permits

[chevvron]

When you were qualified to fly cadets for air experience at Air Cadet gliding schools, you were permitted to allow the cadet to handle the controls only above 500ft agl.

[Jim59]

Looking at my own aviation policy it clearly states that cover is suspended “whilst the aircraft is being piloted by any person other than as stated in the schedule” with an exception for ground operations by a competent person. It does not have cover for instructional use.

To me this means that if anybody not listed in the schedule either specifically or as a class of persons entitled to cover under the policy is piloting the aircraft (i.e. handling the controls in flight) then the aircraft is uninsured at that time. I don’t think that the argument that the person piloting the aircraft is not the PIC will wash. Since it is a legal requirement to have third party cover when the aircraft is being flown then that portion of the flight is illegal. This seems to imply that under my policy if I, as PIC, allow someone other than a syndicate partner to handle the controls in flight I’m both uninsured and illegal as long as that situation continues.

As always, it does not matter too much until something goes wrong!

No doubt some will argue that handling the controls is not the same as piloting the aircraft if an PIC listed in the policy schedule is in a pilots seat. The question is whether the insurance company will agree when a claim is made.

[PaulH1]

So on that argument, is the autopilot included in the insurance policy? Provided the insured pilot was occupying one of the front seats and the aircraft had dual controls then I do not see that it is an issue.

[Jim59]

So on that argument, is the autopilot included in the insurance policy?
If you call it George then maybe you need to add it.

I do not see that it is an issue.
It's not whether you think it is an issue - it whether your insurers do. In the case cited they thought it to be an issue and voided the policy.

[flash8]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/10035990/Air-India-pilot-left-hostesses-in-cockpit-while-he-slept-in-business-class.html
They were only forced to return 40 minutes later when the attendants accidentally switched off the plane's auto-pilot switch, according to the claims.
Now that was their mistake! Look, don't touch!

[Pilot DAR]

then the aircraft is uninsured at that time.

And if you're safely up there, is that a real problem? I would be very surprised to hear that an insurance company objected to a passenger flying when there was no risk whatever of a claim. It's up to the pilot to assure that they are in control of the plane during phases of flight which do create risk. That said, some pilots might be comfortable to within 500 feet of the surface, and some to 50 feet. That's a pilot decision, the insurer does not need to be involved - unless the pilot makes a poor decision....

[PaulH1]

If the pilot flying had no bearing on the incident I think that the Insurers should be named and shamed. More info is required. I have a share in a light aircraft and if this is a loss adjuster trying to get the insurance company out of making a payment I would like to know who it is as I would certainly move my business somewhere else if true.

[AviatorDave]

As always, there is no simple answer.
If a flight instructor or a very experienced pilot let someone have „a go“ at the controls of a light airplane, at altitude and in non critical situations, I‘d see no problem.
That‘s how aviation careers get started, (Guess how I know ...)

The problems come if the PIC loses situational awareness or gets task saturated while watching and supervising. A typical scenario would be the freshly minted, still very green private pilot, taking up his friends for a ride, being eager to show off. Definitely a situation I would take issue with if such PIC would let someone else „have a go“, and most likely the reason why it is forbidden by today’s regulations.

[TheOddOne]

It does not have cover for instructional use.

I'm amazed. All the policies I've seen cover an instructor whilst giving a named person on the policy instruction (for their revalidation instructional flight, for instance). I'm going to have to look more carefully at Club members' insurance before I go flying with them in their own aircraft. The alternative would be to insist they do this flight in the Club aircraft, which has no restrictions, apart from declaring individuals flying who are over 74 (several). I think this would be a bad move as I want to see how they are operating their own aircraft.
A lot of policies used to automatically cover instructors to fly the aircraft, which I sometimes do to help out for maintenance ferries etc. Now, I have to get the owner to put me on as a named pilot. Usually, this is at no extra charge, but the last one cost the owner £80. He still paid as it was worth it to him, but it's all creeping up...

TOO

[Maoraigh1]

The two aircraft I have shares in are only covered for the syndicate members, and an instructor who is instructing them. Not an instructor without one of them. There's no mention of someone else touching controls.
I have difficulty visualising a situation where a sane and sober pax could cause an accident other than at take-off or landing.
I have difficulty visualising how, post accident, it could be determined that the pax caused it.
I can visualize a situation where a pax in a small aircraft could cause an accident, without any willingness by the pilot to let them touch anything.

[Whiskey Kilo Wanderer]

Like many posters on here I’m happy to let passengers have a go if they wish, with the usual caveats of ‘not near the ground’ etc. Like BackPacker I do an annual charity flying day (Starlight at Popham) as well as other youth related sessions. I’ve even had the call “You might not remember me, but you’ve cost me a lot of money! Some time ago you took me for a ride in your aeroplane, I’m calling to tell you I’ve just got my PPL”.

With regard to the OP, if the PIC wasn’t an instructor, then it wasn’t an instructional flight. The PIC holds similar authority to the ship’s captain, described as ‘Master under God’. Ok, some captains I knew might dispute the authority gradient…. The point is that as PIC you can do what you like, and any results are your problem (should there be a problem). If as others have said, the passenger flying somehow caused the problem, then there may be a case against the PIC for allowing it to get that far. If it was a case of the loss adjuster dredging up any possible unrelated cause to disallow the claim, there are a lot of people who would really like to know the Insurance company and the loss adjuster, so that they can be avoided. I suspect most of us will now go and have a look at our aircraft insurance, to check that no such clause is hidden away in our policies. Thanks for the heads-up / warning.

[rarelyathome]

I'm going to have to look more carefully at Club members' insurance before I go flying. ......

I think this would be a bad move as I want to see how they are operating their own aircraft.

TOO

You are right, always, always check the insurance if you are instructing in a privately owned aircraft.

As for your wish to see them operating their own aircraft, why? You are not assessing them and you are required to sign their renewal if you complete the 1 hour instructed flight. You don’t have the option of not doing so, so it doesn’t matter what they are flying as long as it’s in the appropriate category.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Another one to check; every year I run a fly in at an unlicensed airfield. Four years ago a pilot in a PA28 came and asked if we thought he would be able to take-off with the load he had. He didn't understand the performance section of the POH, had little idea of what he was doing on grass, nearly made a massive hash of it all, his wife and daughter went home (165 miles) in a taxi.

The following day I called the syndicate instructor, the instructor was horrified at the standards and flying of the PPL holding syndicate member then informed me that their insurance precluded unlicensed strips.

Talking with the underwriters of my company fleet insurance they told me that even if the guy had experienced an EFATO from an unlicensed strip they would probably have walked away, despite the fact he was airborne and not on the strip, but was flying from it.

I checked the insurance for my weekend toy and it had the same caveat, a small fee and tiny premium increase and cover was restored, and she lives year round on an unlicensed, private strip.

SND

[Nubboy]

When preparing students for their skill test towards the end of their ppl course, I always included a little demonstration of what might happen if they let their non flying friends have a go. After slow flight and stalling revision, whilst still well above 3000 agl, I’d take control and start a turn. I’d add a bit too much bank, just over 30 degrees, but fail to apply enough back pressure. Inevitably most students were slow to recognise the ensuing spiral dive. Astoundingly some misdiagnosed it as a spin (which is not a normal part of the current syllabus).
Either way food for thought and plenty of discussion items for the post flight debrief and coffee.

[Sam Rutherford]

Jim59 Can you let us know more about the actual event you mention in your first post? I think many of us would like to know more, as the decision of the insurance company seems harsh/unreasonable unless there is more to the story?

[MrAverage]

rarely at home

We do have the option of not signing the log book, which would invalidate any revalidation paperwork and require at least one more instructor hour before the licence could be signed.

[Jim59]

Can you let us know more about the actual event you mention in your first post? I think many of us would like to know more, as the decision of the insurance company seems harsh/unreasonable unless there is more to the story?
As you can imagine it's an ongoing situation likely to involve lawyers and subrogation claims against individuals so I feel discretion is appropriate at present.

Knowing the impact this is having on friends I wanted to bring to a wider audience the fact that they may need to consider the financial risks they are taking if flying outside the cover laid down in their insurance - not to expose/identify the parties. It may be appropriate to identify the insurers when the dust has settled.

[RatherBeFlying]

In Canada the regulations were amended to prohibit any non pilot touching the controls unless the PIC is an instructor. Before that I would put the right seat in charge of holding wings level and I would watch for traffic, talk to ATC, monitor the gauges and track, work out ETA (before GPS) and of course monitor "George" like a hawk after instructing. Took over approaching destination.
​​​​​
Pretty much the same for glider intros. After release, let them try out the controls and take back entering the circuit.

​​​​​​Do read the insurance policy.

[Alpine Flyer]

In Canada the regulations were amended to prohibit any non pilot touching the controls unless the PIC is an instructor. Before that I would put the right seat in charge of holding wings level and I would watch for traffic, talk to ATC, monitor the gauges and track, work out ETA (before GPS) and of course monitor "George" like a hawk after instructing. Took over approaching destination.
​​​​​
Pretty much the same for glider intros. After release, let them try out the controls and take back entering the circuit.

​​​​​​Do read the insurance policy.

The Canadian Regulation is stupid. I was allowed to handle controls of a Cessna 210 during cruise from about 5 years of age and had my own booster seat so I could actually look over the glare shield. (When not on controls I also operated gear and flaps on my dad's command at that age.) I have done so myself once I had a license of my own and can't see any harm in that during private flights as long as it's limited to safe phases of flight and the PIC monitors it and knows what he's doing.

[FullWings]

Very interesting. I could understand a problem with the claim if the passenger was on the controls at the time of the accident but if it was at a time that had no influence on the mishap itself, then it does seem a bit off. What next, “did you have help pushing it out of the hangar?”...

[megan]

Sometimes it doesn't quite work out as you may have planned. Horses for courses of course.

https://reports.aviation-safety.net/1994/19940323-0_A310_F-OGQS.pdf

[Nubboy]

Bit of thread drift here, surely. I seem to recall the OP was asking about light singles. No one here has so far as I’ve noticed carried the question across to public transport jets. To which the answer should be an unequivocal “Never”.
Light aircraft, according to appropriate circumstances, an equally resounding “Yes”. Common sense should rule.
If not the logical extension is that only aircraft operated by flying schools would be allowed to have dual controls, and then when flown solo or with an instructor onboard. Otherwise a law should be passed decreeing non licensed (or named insured pilots) MUST sit where they have no access to the controls.
Ye Gods and little fishes. Where has personal responsibility gone. What is the meaning of pilot in “command”?
Have we not learnt yet that you cannot legislate against every possibility?

[mickjoebill]

To my mind, if the accident occurs during this period, then insurance won't pay out. If, though, the accident occurs afterwards (with insured in control), then surely insurance should cover.

Or it's not that simple?​​​​​

We were making a documentary regarding a young man who sadly had a terminal illness. He had a passion for flying but had never been in a light aircraft.

We arranged for a flight in a training glider, but our insurance company would not insure the flight as they understood that the flight controls were mechanically linked and the seating arrangement would not allow the pilot to regain control should the lad have made “inappropriate inputs”.(suicide-murder)

[BillieBob]

Personal opinion counts for very little in this context. What matters is the law and how the insurance company or, in the worst case, a court interprets it. As usual, UK law is written in such a way as to allow for the maximum flexibility in interpretation and, specifically, ANO Article 136 prohibits anyone from "acting as a pilot" without being in possession of an appropriate licence, unless undergoing flying training. An insurer might argue that if a person influences the flight path of an aircraft by manipulating the flying controls, they might be said to "acting as a pilot". If that person does not hold an appropriate licence and is not under instruction it might be further argued that the flight was being conducted other than in accordance with the ANO and, therefore, that the insurance was invalidated.

Of course, this will all remain as pointless conjecture unless and until the issue is tested in a court of law.

[Maoraigh1]

". If that person does not hold an appropriate licence and is not under instruction it might be further argued that the flight was being conducted other than in accordance with the ANO and, therefore, that the insurance was invalidated."
But is the insurance invalidated for later in the flight, when the accident occurs on approach/landing, with the P1 in charge?
If so, if a pilot whose insurance covers aerobatics "minimum 1000' AGL" is observed rolling below 1000', and he goes off the runway due to a crosswind gust on landing, is he out of cover?
I got caught in cloud, did a 180°, got back VFR, on a basic PPL. Broadcast my situation and intention. Was my insurance invalidated for the rest of the flight?
I can understand if the pilot handling the landing was not insured.

[briani]

I remember that flying from Denham (many years ago) Tiger Moth and Magister sticks were removed before passengers were carried. In more recent times, only Instructors were allowed to 'hand over control'

[BillieBob]

But is the insurance invalidated for later in the flight, when the accident occurs on approach/landing, with the P1 in charge? Judging by the OP's example, the answer is Yes.

[Jan Olieslagers]

I remember that flying from Denham (many years ago) Tiger Moth and Magister sticks were removed before passengers were carried.

That is certainly what happened on my very first flight, as a passenger of course, in the front seat of a Piper Cub, from EBAW; must have been in the early 1960's.

[Pilot DAR]

I remember that flying from Denham (many years ago) Tiger Moth and Magister sticks were removed before passengers were carried.

I'm guessing that the aircraft being referred to were not being flown by their owners, with the passengers. In which case, the owner does have the privilege of removing removable sticks if they wish, they don't need to justify their reasoning to rental pilots. And, both of those types being dual tandem cockpits, there is a very much higher risk that with dual controls, a non instructor pilot, and a non pilot passenger who is being offered the opportunity to fly, that no one might be flying the plane! This has been a problem in Cubs and Citabrias, where the "pilot" cannot see that the other person is, or is not actually flying. Passengers tend to let go at the strangest times.

And, when I know I'm going to carry a number of passengers, or a big one, in the planes I own, I do remove the right side controls, simply to prevent their interfering. This is also very common in helicopters. In my flying boat (stick, not control wheel), accidental passenger interference during a water takeoff or landing could go very wrong.

[AN2 Driver]

Have you ever allowed a passenger, qualified or otherwise, to handle the controls on an SEP whilst you are PIC? If so would you do it again?

In the past yes, long time ago. Today I would no longer do it for exactly the reasons you ask the question, unless that person is qualified ON THE PARTICULAR AIRPLANE, that is one of the pilots who operates it regularly within the group. We do not have specified people listed in our airplane (unspecified pilots) in the insurance, so that particular loophole could not have been used against us.

To let unqualified people fly under safe conditions was a nice thing to do in the past and certainly has brought many people into aviation. I have enjoyed this very much in the past, but given the current legal climate, in which everything will be used against you and upheld by the legal system, I would not do it anymore today. There also have been some prominent accidents where pilots were accused later on to have let their passengers at the controls, usually with very massive consequences for the operator.

In fact, I am quite reluctant to take passengers at all these days for the very same reasons, a) many halfways expect they can have a go and b) it may well be a legal nightmare if something happens.

What has to be addressed at some point will be that insurances have become a power under themselves often overriding regulatory efforts to simplify flying. Particularly in the US it appears that they regularly refuse people cover who are perfectly qualified to fly a particular airplane but insurers are increasingly unwilling to insure e.g. younger pilots who buy their first complex or similar unless they fly lots of hours with safety pilots or instructors. If someone is deemed qualified by the competent authority, then I don't think it is appropriate for insurers to demand additional qualifications. But that is another business.

The particular case you mention is a trap into which quite a few syndicates or owners who do not specify pilots by name can fall into. One reason why we decided to include "unspecified ppl or higher" rather than "5 named pilots". Yes it costs a bit more but it will cover you in the case you decide to share a flight with a competent and qualified pilot who is not listed.