Allowing passengers to manipulate the controls
Guest
Posts: n/a
Allowing passengers to manipulate the controls
I'm sure this happens a great deal in private flying, and probably to no great harm, but I did think it was technically against the law. However a recent thread in Rotorheads sent me off to the ANO to check, and now I'm not quite so sure.
You undoubtedly need a licensed pilot at the controls, and you certainly can't act as "flight crew" (which includes pilot) unless you have a license or are under instruction. But the term "pilot" is not defined (although "Pilot-in-Command" is), so it seems there is wiggle room.
Can someone point out if i'm missing something ?
You undoubtedly need a licensed pilot at the controls, and you certainly can't act as "flight crew" (which includes pilot) unless you have a license or are under instruction. But the term "pilot" is not defined (although "Pilot-in-Command" is), so it seems there is wiggle room.
Can someone point out if i'm missing something ?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: biggar
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think so; as you said there seems to nothing against it and PPL holders have often handed control to a passenger - this seems odd, but the passenger can be 1. a pilot. 2. a flight instructor, 3. a friend or 4. a lapsed pilot or flight instructor. dbee
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its fine there are no rules as such about it.
PIC doesn't mean you have to touch the controls. Just go to court and justify what you did if there is a cock up.
There is also nothing to stop a none FI being PIC from the RHS. Not wise I will admit for someone not used to it.
This is of course British rules I know the FAA doesn't allow none CFI's to be PIC in the RHS.
PIC doesn't mean you have to touch the controls. Just go to court and justify what you did if there is a cock up.
There is also nothing to stop a none FI being PIC from the RHS. Not wise I will admit for someone not used to it.
This is of course British rules I know the FAA doesn't allow none CFI's to be PIC in the RHS.
There is nothing to prevent you doing so or even teaching them; but what you must consider is that as PIC you have certain responsibiities for the safety of the aircraft; its passengers, and persons and property on the ground. See Articles 73 and 74.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is of course British rules I know the FAA doesn't allow none CFI's to be PIC in the RHS.
Thats news to me. AFAIK, there is no such direct regulation in the FARs. As previously stated, you can be PIC regardless of where you are in the aircraft or who is touching the controls, you will just have to justify your actions (or inactions) incase of an incident/accident.
The only time the FAA says that a certain pilot has to be either in the LH or RH seat is when the aircraft flight manual specifies a PIC (and/or FO) seat. Last i checked, the smaller cessna's don't specify a seat, allowing you to choose in which seat to commandeer the aircraft. Of course most FBO's have guidelines that do not allow non rated pilots sitting in the LH seat without a checked out flight instructor in the RHS.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can't give a quote and to be honest don't care either.
I am a JAR boy through and through. Mind you with the amount of ****e heard from CFI's in FL it could all be a pile of poo.
They really didn't like the fact I dumped my green page log book in the bucket as i walked out the door. As if a FAA CFI opinion means anything at all.
I must admit I would like to know where some of them are now. Two I hope are cleaning toilets hopefully in there home country in the middle east.
I am a JAR boy through and through. Mind you with the amount of ****e heard from CFI's in FL it could all be a pile of poo.
They really didn't like the fact I dumped my green page log book in the bucket as i walked out the door. As if a FAA CFI opinion means anything at all.
I must admit I would like to know where some of them are now. Two I hope are cleaning toilets hopefully in there home country in the middle east.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They really didn't like the fact I dumped my green page log book in the bucket as i walked out the door. As if a FAA CFI opinion means anything at all.
Back to the question at hand, there is no prohibition against a non-pilot passenger manipulating the controls. In the United States under the FAA, there is no such prohibition, except for operations involving charter or airlines...when a passenger is not allowed to manipulate the controls.
The FAA has no regulation dictating that a PIC must be in the right or left seat.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No just stroppy hour building CFI's who sit and moan all day that they can't work in europe, they don't have a green card, none of the US airlines will hire them. They have 2000 hours and thier visa is going to run out soon. And you JAR boys think you are going to go RHS in a jet when you get home (it didn't help that a couple of ex PPL students had actually sent back pics of themselves in the RHS of a 757 as a first job) And none of the local girls will even speak to them never mind marry them. And they had a nasty habit of putting essays in your log book.
The gold seal CFI's I met I could fully understand why they had the gold seal.
But they wern't very common.
Now FAA trained PPL pilots unfortunately my experence hasn't been pleasant. I know I will have flown with a very small % of those qualified and shouldn't tar all of them with the same brush. I think you will find most Instructors in the UK have similar views.
The gold seal CFI's I met I could fully understand why they had the gold seal.
But they wern't very common.
Now FAA trained PPL pilots unfortunately my experence hasn't been pleasant. I know I will have flown with a very small % of those qualified and shouldn't tar all of them with the same brush. I think you will find most Instructors in the UK have similar views.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That explains the "mad jock" name, then. Perhaps it should simply be "mad, arrogant jock."
You did your flight training in the US?
Those who crawl to the US to seek out their flight training then go home to whine about should probably have stayed home in the first place.
You did your flight training in the US?
Those who crawl to the US to seek out their flight training then go home to whine about should probably have stayed home in the first place.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: somewhere in Asia
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminder! AEROFLOT
ASN Aircraft accident Airbus A310-304 F-OGQS Mezhduretshensk
So much to passenger's control! 
The aircraft was en route from Moscow to Hong Kong at 10100m when, approaching the Novokuznetsk reporting point, the captain's daughter entered the cockpit. She was allowed to sit the left-hand seat while the captain demonstrated some autopilot features, using HDG/S and NAV submodes to alter the heading. The captain's son then took the left front seat. The captain intended to demonstrate the same manoeuvre when his son asked if he could turn the control wheel. He then turned the wheel slightly (applying a force of between 8-10kg) and held it in that position for a few seconds before returning the wheel to the neutral position. The captain then demonstrated the same features as he did to his daughter and ended by using the NAV submode to bring the aircraft back on course. As the autopilot attempted to level the aircraft at its programmed heading, it came in conflict with the inputs from the control wheel which was blocked in a neutral position. Forces on the control wheel increased to 12-13kg until the torque limiter activated by disconnecting the autopilot servo from the aileron control linkage. The autopilot remained engaged however. The aircraft then started to bank to the right at 2,5deg/sec, reaching 45deg. when the autopilot wasn't able to maintain altitude. The A.310 started buffeting, which caught the attention of the captain who told the co-pilot to take control while he was trying to regain his seat. The seat of the co-pilot was fully aft, so it took him an additional 2-3 seconds to get to the control wheel. The bank continued to 90deg, the aircraft pitched up steeply with +4,8g accelerations, stalled and entered a spin. Two minutes and six seconds later the aircraft struck the ground.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've watched an Air Crash Investigation about that on National Geographic few days ago. I would never let my kids or friends take control in a Boeing or Airbus. I would be mad. But I'll probably let them take the controls for few minutes in a Cessna or so, and carefully watch them and take care of everything and make sure the flight is ok. I wouldn't risk a life, and on Boeing about over 100 lives.
It's like a trial lesson, letting someone take the controls for few minutes in a Cessna.. that's ok, and I'll probably do that sometime in my life.
But letting your kid take the full control and risk life of over a 100 people, that's just so unprofessional!
It's like a trial lesson, letting someone take the controls for few minutes in a Cessna.. that's ok, and I'll probably do that sometime in my life.
But letting your kid take the full control and risk life of over a 100 people, that's just so unprofessional!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those who crawl to the US to seek out their flight training then go home to whine about should probably have stayed home in the first place.
If you look at all the bumf for the safety pilot course it actually tells them to go away and practise. There must be many husbands/wifes who have a shot virtually every flight with thier other half. Not to mention the few kids who turn up for their first lesson at 15 who are more than capable of going solo.
It really isn't a problem in a SEP. In fact it is a very common method of stopping the pax being sick.
The situation with the airbus would be against most SOP's if not law in the UK as you have to have at least one member of crew strapped in at the controls at all times apart from T/O and Landing where you must have 2.
Last edited by mad_jock; 24th Aug 2008 at 20:06.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Derby
Age: 45
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit crap.
I've heard of someone letting others take control BUT it's a FIRST that I hear about kids turning a large jet aircraft.
I personally think: It's just about enough to allow them in the cockpit. (certainly no touching buttons or controlling)
I agree if there's a time you want to show someone the fancy "stuff" just take them in your OWN little plane or rent a small one and show that ONE passenger, relative etc what does what.
Just my pennies worth,
-1/60
I personally think: It's just about enough to allow them in the cockpit. (certainly no touching buttons or controlling)
I agree if there's a time you want to show someone the fancy "stuff" just take them in your OWN little plane or rent a small one and show that ONE passenger, relative etc what does what.
Just my pennies worth,
-1/60
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1/60, the story about the Airbus crashing because of Captain's kids taking control is on National Geographic, in the Air Crash Investigation quite a lot. I've seen it quite a few times and I can't believe that this experienced pilot had let his kids take control in a pretty big jet and risked the life of all.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slow down a bit, folks.
First of all, the case under discussion was Aeroflot...need anyone say more?
Second of all, the boy flying the airplane wasn't the problem. Neither was the girl. The problem was the pilot's failure to remain in control...which he would have successfully been able to do had he not put the child's inputs at odds with the autopilot. It's not the first time an aircraft has run into trouble because the pilots fought the autopilot or failed to take into account automation. Many years ago two USAF C-21 pilots allowed a fuel imbalance to exceed the autopilot capabilities and lost the airplane when it disconnected, and in a classic case of being out of the loop with the airplane, a 747SP China Airlines crew not only lost control, but managed to roll the airplane over the Pacific and lose 30,000'...recovering with a damaged airplane and injured passengers. On and on the list goes.
It wasn't specifically the child's fault, and the real problem was failure to be aware of the aircraft condition...additionally with a second pilot flying the airplane...there's really no excuse there to put it all on the child. Nor can one say the real cause is the pilot putting the child there or letting him touch the controls. It was the pilot allowing an input which contradicted the autopilot; it was a systems mismanagement...not the child's input.
Is there something about touching the controls with nobody in back that's more right than with 100 people in back? Of course not. Is a flight placed at risk simply because someone touches the controls? No. Is it more dangerous because it's a large airplane? Absolutely not. In fact, a large airplane is even more stable, even safer...just not a big deal. The case of the Aeroflot loss isn't about a passenger touching the controls, however much it may appear to be when watching such authoritative sources as "national geographic air disasters."
We see this in many cases, but it's very easy to be looking at the wrong picture when examining a loss like this. A child picks up his fathers gun, inadvertantly shoots his best friend while playing, kills him. What's the problem here? Is it the need for safer ammunition? Children with firearms? Poor education on respecting or handling firearms? Or simply a failure on the part of the father to lock up the handgun? It's easy to blame the child. It's not really the child's handling of the firearm that's to blame here, even though he did pull the trigger. It's the father's inadequate supervision and failure to put the handgun in a safe.
Same with the Aeroflot case. Had the pilot disconnected the autopilot, it would have been a non-event. Had the pilot done many things it would have been a non-event. But he didn't. Allowing the child to touch the controls or even manipulate them wasn't the problem, and doesn't put a flight at risk. Failing to remain in charge and to operate the airplane properly...that puts the flight at risk.
One might well see the airplane stall and spin with a passenger manipulating the controls, and try to say this is proof positive that a passenger has no business manipulating the controls. Absolute horse hockey. What it constitutes instead is failure of the pilot to ensure the safe outcome of the flight, every bit as much as if he simply did nothing with nobody touching the controls, and allowed the airplane to stall and spin. Whether the autopilot is flying, the pilot is flying or a passenger is flying, the pilot's first and foremost responsibility and actions are always the same, and a passenger manipulating the controls does no more to put the flight in jeopardy if the pilot is doing his job than does the autopilot.
As a flight instructor, I allow non-pilots to manipulate controls. It's the whole idea, really. Someone did the same for me once, else I'd never be a pilot myself. And for every pilot reading this or commenting on this thread...that's how you got here. You weren't born a pilot, you were allowed to become one, and that happened from a state of no experience, to finally learning the ropes. Was the airplane in a great deal of jeopardy once, simply because you weren't a veteran pilot? Of course not. You had an instructor there with you.
A passenger has a pilot there with them, too.
Airlines in general, and charter operations, are bound by regulations restricting passengers from touching the controls. However, legality aside, the mere technical implications with respect to safety of flight with a passenger in contact with the flight controls are not grim, but overblown.
The truth is that many airlines in the international scene, and even in the US in the regional scene, are piloted by individuals with so little experience that they may as well just be passengers. Personally, I'd much rather see a passenger manipulating the controls under the supervision of an experienced pilot than a cockpit crewed by 250 hour wonders (or one two hundred fifty hour wonder and one person who has done nothing else since he was hired as a 250 hour wonder...).
It's not the passenger operating the controls that's the problem. It's the pilot doing the supervision, and as the pilot's always responsible for the safe outcome of the flight then nothing has changed between having the passenger touch the controls, or having the pilot do it through the autopilot or by hand. It all goes back to the pilot in command.
First of all, the case under discussion was Aeroflot...need anyone say more?
Second of all, the boy flying the airplane wasn't the problem. Neither was the girl. The problem was the pilot's failure to remain in control...which he would have successfully been able to do had he not put the child's inputs at odds with the autopilot. It's not the first time an aircraft has run into trouble because the pilots fought the autopilot or failed to take into account automation. Many years ago two USAF C-21 pilots allowed a fuel imbalance to exceed the autopilot capabilities and lost the airplane when it disconnected, and in a classic case of being out of the loop with the airplane, a 747SP China Airlines crew not only lost control, but managed to roll the airplane over the Pacific and lose 30,000'...recovering with a damaged airplane and injured passengers. On and on the list goes.
It wasn't specifically the child's fault, and the real problem was failure to be aware of the aircraft condition...additionally with a second pilot flying the airplane...there's really no excuse there to put it all on the child. Nor can one say the real cause is the pilot putting the child there or letting him touch the controls. It was the pilot allowing an input which contradicted the autopilot; it was a systems mismanagement...not the child's input.
Is there something about touching the controls with nobody in back that's more right than with 100 people in back? Of course not. Is a flight placed at risk simply because someone touches the controls? No. Is it more dangerous because it's a large airplane? Absolutely not. In fact, a large airplane is even more stable, even safer...just not a big deal. The case of the Aeroflot loss isn't about a passenger touching the controls, however much it may appear to be when watching such authoritative sources as "national geographic air disasters."
We see this in many cases, but it's very easy to be looking at the wrong picture when examining a loss like this. A child picks up his fathers gun, inadvertantly shoots his best friend while playing, kills him. What's the problem here? Is it the need for safer ammunition? Children with firearms? Poor education on respecting or handling firearms? Or simply a failure on the part of the father to lock up the handgun? It's easy to blame the child. It's not really the child's handling of the firearm that's to blame here, even though he did pull the trigger. It's the father's inadequate supervision and failure to put the handgun in a safe.
Same with the Aeroflot case. Had the pilot disconnected the autopilot, it would have been a non-event. Had the pilot done many things it would have been a non-event. But he didn't. Allowing the child to touch the controls or even manipulate them wasn't the problem, and doesn't put a flight at risk. Failing to remain in charge and to operate the airplane properly...that puts the flight at risk.
One might well see the airplane stall and spin with a passenger manipulating the controls, and try to say this is proof positive that a passenger has no business manipulating the controls. Absolute horse hockey. What it constitutes instead is failure of the pilot to ensure the safe outcome of the flight, every bit as much as if he simply did nothing with nobody touching the controls, and allowed the airplane to stall and spin. Whether the autopilot is flying, the pilot is flying or a passenger is flying, the pilot's first and foremost responsibility and actions are always the same, and a passenger manipulating the controls does no more to put the flight in jeopardy if the pilot is doing his job than does the autopilot.
As a flight instructor, I allow non-pilots to manipulate controls. It's the whole idea, really. Someone did the same for me once, else I'd never be a pilot myself. And for every pilot reading this or commenting on this thread...that's how you got here. You weren't born a pilot, you were allowed to become one, and that happened from a state of no experience, to finally learning the ropes. Was the airplane in a great deal of jeopardy once, simply because you weren't a veteran pilot? Of course not. You had an instructor there with you.
A passenger has a pilot there with them, too.
Airlines in general, and charter operations, are bound by regulations restricting passengers from touching the controls. However, legality aside, the mere technical implications with respect to safety of flight with a passenger in contact with the flight controls are not grim, but overblown.
The truth is that many airlines in the international scene, and even in the US in the regional scene, are piloted by individuals with so little experience that they may as well just be passengers. Personally, I'd much rather see a passenger manipulating the controls under the supervision of an experienced pilot than a cockpit crewed by 250 hour wonders (or one two hundred fifty hour wonder and one person who has done nothing else since he was hired as a 250 hour wonder...).
It's not the passenger operating the controls that's the problem. It's the pilot doing the supervision, and as the pilot's always responsible for the safe outcome of the flight then nothing has changed between having the passenger touch the controls, or having the pilot do it through the autopilot or by hand. It all goes back to the pilot in command.
