PIC seat position
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: england
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PIC seat position
Could anybody please tell me if the regs say that the PIC in a single piston engine plane has to sit left seat 1) when flying alone and 2) when flying with non-pilot passengers and if so where I find the relevant regulation. Thanks
There is no regulation regarding the seat however you must be able to operate the aircraft safely Art 87. You should also be aware of Art 137
This implies that you intend to put a passenger in the pilots seat; which also implies you might be giving them a lesson. Unless you hold an instructor rating and are used to operating the aircraft from the right hand seat I would suggest its not a good idea. If you were to have an accident it could leave you in a position of liability. Your insurers might also have something to say.
Endangering safety of an aircraft
137. A person must not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in an aircraft.
137. A person must not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in an aircraft.
when flying with non-pilot passengers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: england
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks - actually the situation is that I am an instructor. I took one of my students plus 2 other people for a flight. The student hired the plane completely seperate from his instruction programme and I took no payment since he is also a friend. I needed to file a General Declaration and a VFR flight plan (in Greece as it happens) - in both I filed that I was PIC with 3 passengers, NO STUDENT because there were people in the back seats. However, my student sat in the left seat and I flew the entire flight from the right seat. On my return the Head of Training informed me I had infringed JAR-FCL regulations by flying from the right seat with passengers I disagreed and have been unable to find any regulation that supports his (or my) viewpoint but thought I would ask experts - you guys.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All you need is for the Head of Training to say don't fly as PIC from the right seat with passengers and that then becomes a legal requirement if you want to fly that aircraft.
As for the legal position - aside from being told not to there is no direct contravention - even if you are not an instructor.
However, imagine you in court answering an allegation of manslaughter;
Mr. freeasair can you please prove that you were not giving unauthorised instruction?
The designer of the aircraft has gone to great lengths to ensure that various critical instruments and warning lights are placed in the view forward of a person sitting in the left seat. Would you not agree that flying from the right seat requires increased vigilence and effort on your part with regard to maintaining especially a safe airspeed in a critical situation and would you not agree that the average safe pilot would prefer to when possible mitigate against any risk.
As an instructor (produces the CAA AIC etc, Accident report from the Bournemouth accident) you will be aware that where there is no instruction taking place, there is no requirement for you to sit in the right seat and therefore if you were acting in as safe a manner as possible you would have choosen the left seat which made observing the critical instruments easier and would to the average lay person clearly have improved the safety of the flight.
------
It is a sad fact of life these days that most of our efforts go into avoiding having to answer such questions in court!
------
However, there are a few important questions that may also be asked - 1 passenger paid 100% of the costs. How do you square that against the legal requirements regarding not for reward. You were rewarded quite well by that student.
Without an adequate explanation (prior knowledge - where I would say fly from the left) I would be giving you your P45 if I was the HoT. I have no way of knowing that you are not short cuting the school and giving some instruction on the side using the school aircraft and receiving compensation direct from the student. This especially so if there is both dual / solo hire rates.
Why could you not have shown the student a perfect flight as flown from the left seat and given good explanations / demonstrations of what they need to do? After all as an active instructor it is usual to have plenty of right seat time but very little left seat time.
As for the legal position - aside from being told not to there is no direct contravention - even if you are not an instructor.
However, imagine you in court answering an allegation of manslaughter;
Mr. freeasair can you please prove that you were not giving unauthorised instruction?
The designer of the aircraft has gone to great lengths to ensure that various critical instruments and warning lights are placed in the view forward of a person sitting in the left seat. Would you not agree that flying from the right seat requires increased vigilence and effort on your part with regard to maintaining especially a safe airspeed in a critical situation and would you not agree that the average safe pilot would prefer to when possible mitigate against any risk.
As an instructor (produces the CAA AIC etc, Accident report from the Bournemouth accident) you will be aware that where there is no instruction taking place, there is no requirement for you to sit in the right seat and therefore if you were acting in as safe a manner as possible you would have choosen the left seat which made observing the critical instruments easier and would to the average lay person clearly have improved the safety of the flight.
------
It is a sad fact of life these days that most of our efforts go into avoiding having to answer such questions in court!
------
However, there are a few important questions that may also be asked - 1 passenger paid 100% of the costs. How do you square that against the legal requirements regarding not for reward. You were rewarded quite well by that student.
Without an adequate explanation (prior knowledge - where I would say fly from the left) I would be giving you your P45 if I was the HoT. I have no way of knowing that you are not short cuting the school and giving some instruction on the side using the school aircraft and receiving compensation direct from the student. This especially so if there is both dual / solo hire rates.
Why could you not have shown the student a perfect flight as flown from the left seat and given good explanations / demonstrations of what they need to do? After all as an active instructor it is usual to have plenty of right seat time but very little left seat time.
All you need is for the Head of Training to say don't fly as PIC from the right seat with passengers and that then becomes a legal requirement if you want to fly that aircraft.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can not think of a better place to read just how scary the thinking process of far to many pilots is than on this forum.
The paranoia displayed by some here is mind boggling.
The paranoia displayed by some here is mind boggling.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't this a bit like http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...still-pic.html ?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since when have Heads of Training been given the right to make laws? He can specify a Company requirement for the hire of the aircraft, nothing more than that. It certainly isn't a legal requirement.
To be insured the PIC must comply with the directions of the aircraft owner / operator - in this case a school.
If the Head of Training of that school says do not fly the aircraft as PIC from the right seat with passengers then to do so would be illegal since such actions would make the flight uninsured.
So if the Aircraft owner (or their designated representative) says you have to fly PIC from the left then the law requires you to do so or find some other aircraft operator to get you aircraft from.
If the Head of Training of that school says do not fly the aircraft as PIC from the right seat with passengers then to do so would be illegal since such actions would make the flight uninsured.
As this flight was operated as a Private Flight it has nothing to do with any Training Documentation; such a case has been through a UK court where the school successfully claimed no responsibility for a flight that was operated privately, and therefore outside the scope of any training approval or documentation.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand how a student of yours can hire the aircraft without a licence, or am i misunderstanding this? No licence means you have to be PIC and fly from the left hand seat or give instruction from the right. In which case your personal reimbursement is totally at your discretion, however the school should be made aware of that as a courtesy.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whopity,
If I let you fly my aircraft.
I tell the Head of Training that you have to fly from the left seat only.
They tell you that.
If you fly from the right seat you are breaking the law.
I have not made any law. The HoT has not made any law. We don't need to because the laws are already in place. You have broken the law by not complying with a condition set by the provider of the aircraft. This would among other things make the flight uninsured.
You are correct that if I hire you an aircraft as a licence holder for a private flight then that it nothing to do with the school and provided that the aircraft is airworthy and insured, anything you do is your own responsibility as in the case of a private flight you are both PIC and Operator (but not owner) of the aircraft.
When any person or organisation hires you an aircraft there is a hirearchy of requirements;
1. Legal Requirement
2. Owner's Requirements
As an owner I can restrict all hirers to flying in CAVOK and with a maximum wind of 5Kt. I can (without telling the hirers) obtain a reduction in the insurance premium because I have mitigated a portion of the risk.
If you depart Shoreham with a 4000ft overcast to fly along the coast then you are breaking the law by flying uninsured. Had you complied with what I told you then the flight would have been legal.
The fact that I am being more restrictive with the weather than the ANO does not give you any right to do anything other than comply with what I say. You do of course have the right to seek someone else to hire you an aircraft.
Finally you seem to have mistaken the fact that while there is no requirement for an RTF to appoint a post holder to the position of Head of Training an RTF is quite entitled to apply whatever titles it chooses to the various apointees in the company. They can if they choose have HoT CFI and CGI plus deputies. It could be a very big organisation and warrant such devisions of management. Or it could be simply 3 instructors who like having titles. Either way, as an RTF they can call their staff whatever titles they like.
--------------
A lot of these misunderstands arise among people who were involved in the industry before insurance became a legal requirement. In the old days, you could hire the aircraft from me an while complying with the ANO fly it anyhow you wanted - ignore my over the top restrictions and accept that if something happens then you might get chaced through the courts by me when the insurance company decides not to pay but as long as nothing happens then the flight was legal according to the ANO.
That is no longer the case, even if nothing happens the flight will have been uninsured and illegal.
If I let you fly my aircraft.
I tell the Head of Training that you have to fly from the left seat only.
They tell you that.
If you fly from the right seat you are breaking the law.
I have not made any law. The HoT has not made any law. We don't need to because the laws are already in place. You have broken the law by not complying with a condition set by the provider of the aircraft. This would among other things make the flight uninsured.
You are correct that if I hire you an aircraft as a licence holder for a private flight then that it nothing to do with the school and provided that the aircraft is airworthy and insured, anything you do is your own responsibility as in the case of a private flight you are both PIC and Operator (but not owner) of the aircraft.
When any person or organisation hires you an aircraft there is a hirearchy of requirements;
1. Legal Requirement
2. Owner's Requirements
As an owner I can restrict all hirers to flying in CAVOK and with a maximum wind of 5Kt. I can (without telling the hirers) obtain a reduction in the insurance premium because I have mitigated a portion of the risk.
If you depart Shoreham with a 4000ft overcast to fly along the coast then you are breaking the law by flying uninsured. Had you complied with what I told you then the flight would have been legal.
The fact that I am being more restrictive with the weather than the ANO does not give you any right to do anything other than comply with what I say. You do of course have the right to seek someone else to hire you an aircraft.
Finally you seem to have mistaken the fact that while there is no requirement for an RTF to appoint a post holder to the position of Head of Training an RTF is quite entitled to apply whatever titles it chooses to the various apointees in the company. They can if they choose have HoT CFI and CGI plus deputies. It could be a very big organisation and warrant such devisions of management. Or it could be simply 3 instructors who like having titles. Either way, as an RTF they can call their staff whatever titles they like.
--------------
A lot of these misunderstands arise among people who were involved in the industry before insurance became a legal requirement. In the old days, you could hire the aircraft from me an while complying with the ANO fly it anyhow you wanted - ignore my over the top restrictions and accept that if something happens then you might get chaced through the courts by me when the insurance company decides not to pay but as long as nothing happens then the flight was legal according to the ANO.
That is no longer the case, even if nothing happens the flight will have been uninsured and illegal.
Last edited by DFC; 9th Apr 2010 at 09:21.
... I had infringed JAR-FCL regulations
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its all a load of tosh - how are you supposed to teach ab initio?! I stopped instructing years ago when I joined the airlines but I still fly PA38s and PA28s solo from the right seat because its more comfortable for me and my landings are better. I don't give a damm about 'not being able to see the instruments' - none are obscured from either seat - its not exactly a big cockpit!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kent
Age: 61
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have an FI rating and a share in a Super Cub. I recently flew with a (much more experienced but not an instructor) pilot sitting in the front seat. A discussion then ensued with my group partners (which I now realise was only to be expected) as to whether I was insured - since:
On checking (again) the POH (and variations from other vintages of Super Cub) all I could find was the statement "The aircraft is normally flown from the front seat".
I now have it in writing, from the insurance company, that I may fly the aircraft from the rear seat - with some limitations (I may not give instruction and only one, named, person may occupy the front seat).
I think (unless the POH specifically states where PIC must sit) that it all comes down to making sure you are covered by insurance. Chances are, in most cases, you'll only find you're not after a claim - at which time, as well as having to dig deep into your pocket, you will also be waiting for a tap on the shoulder for making an illegal (un-insured) flight.
The other thing, bearing in mind Article 137, is whether you can reach all the controls.
OC619
P.S. The "named" pilot is my wife - so giving "the boss" instruction is a non-starter anyway.
- The other pilot was not insured
- I was not sitting in the "P1" seat
On checking (again) the POH (and variations from other vintages of Super Cub) all I could find was the statement "The aircraft is normally flown from the front seat".
I now have it in writing, from the insurance company, that I may fly the aircraft from the rear seat - with some limitations (I may not give instruction and only one, named, person may occupy the front seat).
I think (unless the POH specifically states where PIC must sit) that it all comes down to making sure you are covered by insurance. Chances are, in most cases, you'll only find you're not after a claim - at which time, as well as having to dig deep into your pocket, you will also be waiting for a tap on the shoulder for making an illegal (un-insured) flight.
The other thing, bearing in mind Article 137, is whether you can reach all the controls.
- In the Super Cub I cannot reach the flaps, mixture or starter - so I have to trust my passenger to do what I tell them
- In a PA28 you can't reach the fuel selector
OC619
P.S. The "named" pilot is my wife - so giving "the boss" instruction is a non-starter anyway.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would argue that having flown the last 200+ hours from the right seat, and being used to having the stick in my right hand and throttle in the left, switching to the opposite for one flight only could be more of a risk than just acting as I normally would.
I remember the transition from left seat to right taking a little while to get used to, why would it be any different the other way around?
I remember the transition from left seat to right taking a little while to get used to, why would it be any different the other way around?
