PIC in the back seat

[Sam Rutherford]

Got a bit of a discussion going on, thought I'd throw it out to the crowd.

PA28 (so single pilot plane). Three pilots on board.

Question: Can the PIC (who is also the only one insured) be in the back?

Added info, the insurance company say this is okay...

Answers on a postcard?

Thanks, Sam.

[possel]

No, that's nonsensical.

[Kemble Pitts]

Wot he said...

[Sam Rutherford]

For what it's worth, I agree - but the insurance company and at least one CFI (FAA) say that it's legal. Which has me surprised as I thought everyone, literally everyone, would be going with the 'nonsensical' response.

[kindupnorth]

Get it in writing from the insurer. If hes in the back hes not PIC ! He may be the aircraft owner. Usually a policy will cover an instructor flying the aircraft
with the insured operating as dual / PICUS / PUT. If the only insured party is sat in the back looking out the window a fail to see who is insured to operate at
that point !

[Tay Cough]

No stick, no vote so unless your insurer knows something the rest of us don’t, no chance.

It’s a PA28. Even a chimp with a few hours on a PPL can get insured on one.

[oggers]

To paraphrase Annex 6, it says that all flight crew members shall be at their stations and remain at their stations (except when they need to leave their station to perform a duty). Clearly for a PA-28 this means one of the two front seats.

[Consol]

No stick, no vote so unless your insurer knows something the rest of us don’t, no chance.

It’s a PA28. Even a chimp with a few hours on a PPL can get insured on one.

Sounds like a strange variation from 'can I log P2 on an A320 if I'm in seat 15b?'.
Join up the words, 'lawyers, accident, court, prosecution' and think how the above situation would go.
Aviation can bite, don't try to get invent new ways to help it.

[VariablePitchP]

You’re as much use in the back as you are in the cafe, in fact you’re less weight if you sit in the cafe so the aircraft will have more spare performance. Might want to suggest that to the insurers?

[Two's in]

It works in military flying, where often the aircraft is just the means of delivering the mission, but in civil aviation, the flying is the entire reason for getting airborne.

[Arfur Dent]

Yes - in the Military AWACS situation the "Captain" is a pilot and he or a designated deputy (crew rest, physiological break etc) is seated at the controls at all times.
The aircraft "Commander" may be a non-pilot and would sit elsewhere.

[Pilot DAR]

Sorry, I thought this would be about a tandem seat airplane with dual controls. Yes, if that, no if the PIC is not seated at a "pilot" position with full controls. I was asked by PIC in the back seat of a Cessna Bird Dog, I declined, as there is not a full set of controls there. I was asked to be PIC in the right seat of a Cessna Caravan, and after review, I agreed, as the flight manual reference says: "One pilot required in the left seat", and the other guy was a pilot, so I could be PIC in the right seat. I couldn't be PIC in a back seat in a Caravan - nor a PA-28. Really, If you were a pilot in the back seat, and the pilot in the front seat crashed, would you still be willing to sign as the PIC for the flight that was crashed out of your control?

[homonculus]

Sam, in the UK at least an insurance company can say or decide whatever they like provided it cannot be challenged by the wording of the policy. If they want to insure an act they can even if it is illegal. Other insurers of course may take a different attitude. If you have it in writing you are insured, but it doesnt mean it is legal. So unless your only concern is any insurance claim I would set aside the insurer's view and rely on the legality or otherwise.

[swh]

No stick, no vote so unless your insurer knows something the rest of us don’t, no chance.

It’s a PA28. Even a chimp with a few hours on a PPL can get insured on one.

No requirement for the PIC to be in a control seat, when I’m on a 16 hr flight in the bunk fast asleep I’m still PIC. The PIC is the person nominated by the operator to be the pilot in command. For a private flight the operator is usually the aircraft owner, so they nominate the PIC.

[Vortex Thing]

I could possibly see the scenario where a PPL student is sitting in the left seat (he/she threfore could not be PIC), another pilot but a student Instructor (fully qualified pilot) however under test to become a flying instructor is in the right hand seat and the back seat contained a Flight Instructor Examiner who is testing the FI student who is teaching the student student could possilby be a valid sceanrio.

As swh mentions above I am still the PIC when I go to the loo or the bunk.

On homonculus's point I disagree as my understading is that policy wording is contractual in nature and you cannot contract out of the law. So if a contract implies you can/should or worse must do smoething and that thing turns out to be illegal then the drafter has a liability for the act.

[3wheels]

From the ANO...

”Pilot to remain at controls and be secured in seat 70.—(1)

During flight, the pilot in command must—
(a) keep any safety belt fastened while at the pilot’s station; and (a) Amended 2017
37

(b) remain at the controls of the aircraft at all times EXCEPT....if another pilot is taking the controls....

[B2N2]

Here’s one for you.

Student pilot - left seat
Pilot examiner - right seat
FAA inspector - back seat observing the Pilot examiner conduct a check-ride.

Here’s a second scenario:

Student pilot - left seat
Flight Instructor - right seat
Chief Flight Instructor(me)- back seat observing the Instructor.

You can bet your beans that I am PIC in the back seat in that scenario.
In case of accident or incident the FAA would consider the highest rated pilot in a position to interfere in the outcome of the flight as (partially) responsible.


* It is however not loggable time.

[Check Airman]

Under the FAA rules, the PIC can sit wherever he/she wishes. Now whether the person would want to sit in the back is another thing. In the event of an incident or accident, §91.13 comes to mind.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Yes indeed,Check Airman, 91.13 is meant to keep pilots from letting 91.3 get to their heads. Also, 91.13 is very vaguely written, meaning that almost anything can be deemed reckless and careless.

[TimGriff6]

Added info, the insurance company say this is okay...

Thanks, Sam.

To add a bit more info, exactly what question were they asked and how did the insurance company 'say' it's ok?

[VariablePitchP]

Here’s one for you.

Student pilot - left seat
Pilot examiner - right seat
FAA inspector - back seat observing the Pilot examiner conduct a check-ride.

Here’s a second scenario:

Student pilot - left seat
Flight Instructor - right seat
Chief Flight Instructor(me)- back seat observing the Instructor.

You can bet your beans that I am PIC in the back seat in that scenario.
In case of accident or incident the FAA would consider the highest rated pilot in a position to interfere in the outcome of the flight as (partially) responsible.


* It is however not loggable time.

Are you though, if you’re just observing then surely the instructor would be PIC? My equivalent would be a line check, the training captain on the jump seat is the most senior pilot on board but are categorically just there as an observer, and the rules are very clear on that. Should we fail the outbound entirely, they could then jump in the LHS and train the RHS on the return, then they would be PIC.

[Kemble Pitts]

Please, stop now...

[jmmoric]

To add a bit more info, exactly what question were they asked and how did the insurance company 'say' it's ok?

Probably meant he just has to be onboard for his insurance to cover.... otherwise it would be a thrid-party flying the aircraft, and it would either not cover, or be more expensive?

[Sam Rutherford]

Question was as my first post. The insurance company were asked if the PIC can be sat in the back (with two other pilots in the front). They said yes, no problem.

[Jhieminga]

If it's an insurance issue, then I suspect that the term PIC is confusing things. For insurance purposes, Sam R. needs to be on board but may be in the backseat. For operational purposes it's probably best to have one of the frontseaters act as PIC. Personally, that's the way I would approach it, although there may will be better ways to solve this.

Edit: just thought of a way to check the legality of this.... damage the aircraft a bit during this operation and claim it on your insurance. :E

[homonculus]

On homonculus's point I disagree as my understading is that policy wording is contractual in nature and you cannot contract out of the law

I am not a lawyer and have never claimed on an aviation policy :ok: but sadly I do have to argue the t@@@ daily with insurers. You are correct in that normally you must be legal in all matters and any policy even eg house contents can be nullified if you are behaving outside the law. However that does not stop an insurer doing what they want ie the opposite and insuring illegal acts. It seems from my earlier post that the insurer may not have totally understood the situation, which raises the additional risk (to policy holder, not insurer of course) that if the insurer can claim in any way you might have misled, not totally informed, or otherwise said anything in a way they can even claim not to have understood, then again you are not insured. I always assume an insurer will not pay out ever, and then on occasions I have a happy surprise.

None of which answers OP's question :ugh:

[megan]

In Oz my reading of the regs does not require the PIC to be sat at the controls, only that the required number of certified pilots be at the controls, they define the PIC simply as "Pilot responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time", as mentioned previously s/he can be in the bunk. My answer to the OP is yes.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I can't think of any regulations that prohibit the pilot in command being in the back seat, UNLESS the POH (which has legal standing of-course) requires the PiC to be in a particular seat.

But I'm reminded, as I often am, of an old boss of mine at Boscombe Down who gave me the advice "Before making any decision in aviation, always run through your mind the phrase 'at the subsequent board of inquiry' ".

In that case, I think that anybody who thinks that an FI in the back, with no qualified pilot in the front is acting professionally as PiC, is daft. But the case suggested above of an FE in the back checking an FI in the front who is instructing a student sat next to them: the FE being Captain. Well it's unusual, but no more problematic than the Captain of an airliner taking a rest break whilst two qualified pilots remain in the cockpit mid Atlantic.

Another instance might be a 2-seat tandem with no dual controls, current and qualified pilot at the controls, FI or CRI conducting a biennial from the other seat, logging PiC. What's wrong with that?

The quoted original case (four pilots in a PA28) sounds distinctly dodgy, as it sounds very much like four mates going flying together, and the one who happens to be an instructor trying to log everything. You are only, as an instructor, PiC in two circumstances. Either you're flying the thing yourself, or it is formally briefed, etc. as an instructional sortie. Simply being on board with an instructors rating does not make you able to log it as Captain. I've had a couple of instances where (as a CRI but really just going flying with a friend) they *afterwards* asked if they could count it as their biennal - to which I have always said no (but sweetened it by offering to do the biennial, properly briefed, for free in their own aircraft whenever they like, but strangely nobody has ever taken me up on that).

G

[Fl1ingfrog]

The attached link makes for important reading. It was impossible for the examiner to be sat forward facing and secured in their seat whilst observing. The pilot seats are screened off from the passenger seats. The examiner in this situation would have to be sat sideways on a rear facing passenger seat, with a slackened harness, whilst peaking through the central access. I believe the FAA changed the rules following this accident to prevent FAA examining from the rear seats.

https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-cessna-421-golden-eagle-humberside-1-killed

[oggers]

In Oz my reading of the regs does not require the PIC to be sat at the controls, only that the required number of certified pilots be at the controls,

In the end I think that is the 'most correct' answer.

[Dave Gittins]

If I understand this in Post #1 Sam says that the GIB is the only one insured. I assume that if one of the highly qualified pilots at the controls breaks the aeroplane, the insurance company will walk away. That's how it would work in my car.

[S-Works]

Why doesn't the PIC just fly the damn aircraft......

[Fl1ingfrog]

Insurance companies in my experience do not procrastinate on how/who/when a pilot is the PIC. They keep it simple and insure in accordance with the national authority regulations. They will of course sometimes stipulate restrictions, such as experience on type, but these will be clearly set out in the policy. They normally grant exemptions when asked to insure a safety situation say: when a type is single pilot but there is only one set of controls. This may include a CRI/instructor or another approved person to be in the non flying seat during a conversion, which most underwriters encourage.

In multi-crew aeroplanes regulation makes it clear who/when a pilot is the PIC but this is not comparable to single pilot operations, whatever the view of barrack room lawyers. For me it is a complete no-no for the PIC to ride in the rear seats with two others sat at the controls and it can never be justified..

[Ebbie 2003]

'orse pucky and if it isn't it should be

[B2N2]

I think insurance compagnies consider the Person in Command rather then the Pilot in Command.
Who is responsible during the operation?
Clearly there’re is no need for it to be the person manipulating the controls.

[FlightDetent]

Note to EASA multi-pilot operators:

Part-FCL no longer contains the term commander, except in some of the syllabus templates.
Part-OPS refers to commander in the usual manner, but the definition is missing.

[Fl1ingfrog]

"I think insurance companies consider the Person in Command rather then the Pilot in Command.".

That is ridiculous, how can you be a person in command if you are not a qualified pilot and for the type or class of aeroplane. The pilot in command must always be at a set of controls and be able to take control. Any argument to the contrary is unfounded, stupid and ridiculous.

[arketip]

The pilot in command must always be at a set of controls and be able to take control. Any argument to the contrary is unfounded, stupid and ridiculous.

Tell that to the airlines, military, business jets operators,...

[B2N2]

"I think insurance companies consider the Person in Command rather then the Pilot in Command.".

That is ridiculous, how can you be a person in command if you are not a qualified pilot and for the type or class of aeroplane. The pilot in command must always be at a set of controls and be able to take control. Any argument to the contrary is unfounded, stupid and ridiculous.

Little quick on the trigger there boss.
I never said the person in the back does not need hold a license.
Generally the person manipulating the controls aka “flying” is considered the “pilot” of the aircraft. The “pilot” does not need to be the PIC.
If the PIC is in the backseat he/she obviously needs to hold a valid medical/pilot certificate appropriate to the operation.

FAA:
The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
and
Each pilot in command has full control and authority in the operation of the aircraft, without limitation, over other crewmembers and their duties during flight time, whether or not he holds valid certificates authorizing him to perform the duties of those crewmembers

ICAO Annex 2:
The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall, whether manipulating the controls or not, be responsible for the operation of the aircraft in accordance with the rules of the air, except that the pilot-in-command may depart from these rules in circumstances that render such departure absolutely necessary in the interests of safety.

[megan]

The pilot in command must always be at a set of controlsI'll believe that when you can quote a relevant aviation authority directive, until then arketip has the correct information.

[Sam Rutherford]

I'm intrigued that this is still running - what I thought was a stupid question (answer obvious, in a single pilot plane the PIC has to be sat in the front) is clearly not quite as simple/clear cut.

In the end we did the 'obvious' thing, just got everyone fully insured. Ferry completed yesterday!

[WestWind1950]

I was involved in an accident in March 2013 (two -seater powered glider). The children of the PIC, who died in the crash, tried to give me a bit of the responsibility, but at the court proceedings they lost as the PIC is the person in the left hand seat. There was no argument about that!! I'm still suffering from that accident (I can't walk)!! I was once a flight instrutor but that was no longer good.

[BillieBob]

Part-FCL no longer contains the term commander, except in some of the syllabus templates.
Part-OPS refers to commander in the usual manner, but the definition is missing.

Actually, it's not missing, just well hidden

Annex I to Regulation 965/2012 - Definitions
​​​​​​(96) ‘pilot-in-command’ means the pilot designated as being in command and charged with the safe conduct of the flight. For the purpose of commercial air transport operations, the ‘pilot-in-command’ shall be termed the ‘commander’;

[B2N2]

I was involved in an accident in March 2013 (two -seater powered glider). The children of the PIC, who died in the crash, tried to give me a bit of the responsibility, but at the court proceedings they lost as the PIC is the person in the left hand seat. There was no argument about that!! I'm still suffering from that accident (I can't walk)!! I was once a flight instrutor but that was no longer good.

There’s a lot here that we don’t know:
Where you giving instruction or was this a joyride.
Were you current in make and model?
Were you even familiar with make and model?
Did you hold a medical on that day?
Long story short did you qualify to be PIC that day or not?

There’s a lot there that would have come up during a judicial inquiry.
In the original question assume we have three people that are similarly experienced and everybody is current and otherwise qualified to be PIC, can the person in the backseat be the PIC? Yes they can.

As far as rental aircraft, in whose name is the aircraft signed out that flight?
That will always be the one responsible in the eyes of the insurance company.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should

Personally in any light aircraft I am in I will have a set of controls and I will be PIC. This will be confirmed before I get in the aircraft.

[megan]

I was involved in an accident in March 2013 (two -seater powered glider). The children of the PIC, who died in the crash, tried to give me a bit of the responsibility, but at the court proceedings they lost as the PIC is the person in the left hand seat. There was no argument about that!! I'm still suffering from that accident (I can't walk)Just how many people were on board this two seater? Seems PIC, you, children (plural), making at least four. Been there, as a young teenager a local instructor took me for a night flight in a two seater with his daughter sitting on my lap, included a few loops over a well lit city.

[Jim59]

Just how many people were on board this two seater?
Try two. The text says it was PIC who sadly died not the children.

[megan]

Thanks Jim, not the way I interpreted his sentence, back to school.

[Max Angle]

In the UK the situation is clearly laid out in the Air Navigation Order 2016 Article 70, copied below. The relevant section is 3 which implies that you can be the PIC and not at the controls as long as the flight is not a public transport passenger flight. Different for helicopters (section 4)

Pilot to remain at controls and be secured in seat
70.—(1) During flight, the pilot in command must—
(a) keep any safety belt fastened while at the pilot’s station; and
(b) remain at the controls of the aircraft at all times except if another pilot is taking the
controls.
(2) If the aircraft is required by or under this Order to carry two pilots, the pilot in command
must cause both pilots to remain at the controls during take-off and landing.
(3) If the aircraft carries two or more pilots (whether or not it is required to do so) and is flying
on a flight for the purpose of the public transport of passengers, the pilot in command must remain
at the controls during take-off and landing.
(4) An operator must not permit a helicopter rotor to be turned under power for the purpose of
making a flight unless there is a person at the controls entitled in accordance with article 137 to act
as pilot in command of the helicopter. (a)