Can a passenger operate the aircraft controls
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can a passenger operate the aircraft controls
I'm assisting someone in the family court as a mckenzie friend, as we want to be absolutely sure we have got this right, an input from other instructors would be good. Here is situation:
Mother and father have separated, father is a very experienced instructor (SEP) and ATPL, the mother is preventing the father from teaching his children to fly. The father isn't prevented from flying the children as passengers.
The interim order states that the father can not give the children flying lessons unless he provides the following to the mother:
(a) UK CAA CofA
(b) UK CAA Medical
(c) UK CAA Registration Document
(d) Certificate of Insurance
(e) UK CAA Flight Crew Licence
(f) UK Driving Licence and Car Insurance (to get to the airport)
The mother is doing this simply out of anger and spite. Neither the mother or her barrister are are pilots, hence they would not understand the difference between a CofA and Permit to fly or even know of EASA, infact they originally stated they want to see the aircraft MOT!! I also don't think they know what constitutes a CofA
So my questions are:
(a)In the interim can the the father allow the children under his supervision operate the aircraft controls, if the flight is not logged or counted as an instructional flight.
(b) Can anyone, other that the secretary of state, the CAA or an authorised person (examiner, aircraft commander, flight instructor) demand to see the aircraft document and flight crew licence.
(c) Finally, just out of interest, do the Police have the right to inspect aircraft and crew licences.
Obviously, in the long term, the aim is to overturn the interim order, but we need to convince a district judge who knows nothing about aviation!
Mother and father have separated, father is a very experienced instructor (SEP) and ATPL, the mother is preventing the father from teaching his children to fly. The father isn't prevented from flying the children as passengers.
The interim order states that the father can not give the children flying lessons unless he provides the following to the mother:
(a) UK CAA CofA
(b) UK CAA Medical
(c) UK CAA Registration Document
(d) Certificate of Insurance
(e) UK CAA Flight Crew Licence
(f) UK Driving Licence and Car Insurance (to get to the airport)
The mother is doing this simply out of anger and spite. Neither the mother or her barrister are are pilots, hence they would not understand the difference between a CofA and Permit to fly or even know of EASA, infact they originally stated they want to see the aircraft MOT!! I also don't think they know what constitutes a CofA
So my questions are:
(a)In the interim can the the father allow the children under his supervision operate the aircraft controls, if the flight is not logged or counted as an instructional flight.
(b) Can anyone, other that the secretary of state, the CAA or an authorised person (examiner, aircraft commander, flight instructor) demand to see the aircraft document and flight crew licence.
(c) Finally, just out of interest, do the Police have the right to inspect aircraft and crew licences.
Obviously, in the long term, the aim is to overturn the interim order, but we need to convince a district judge who knows nothing about aviation!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a) from an aviation law perspective yes he can, but this is a court order and the court may view it differently.
b) I would say not - but again, this is to comply with the court order so whilst he is not obliged to show these documents it simply means that if he does not do so then he cannot instruct his children.
c) Without due cause I would say not, but doubt they would be interested anyway, my understanding is that this would be a civil matter not a criminal one.
At the end of the day what is the problem with providing them anyway, they are not hard to get and I see no reason not to. show the mother the documents (give her a copy if she wants) and surely that solves it!
It also seems rather foolish of the Mother, hardly gets the kids on her side if Dad says "sorry kids, can't teach you because your mother is being obstructive!"
b) I would say not - but again, this is to comply with the court order so whilst he is not obliged to show these documents it simply means that if he does not do so then he cannot instruct his children.
c) Without due cause I would say not, but doubt they would be interested anyway, my understanding is that this would be a civil matter not a criminal one.
At the end of the day what is the problem with providing them anyway, they are not hard to get and I see no reason not to. show the mother the documents (give her a copy if she wants) and surely that solves it!
It also seems rather foolish of the Mother, hardly gets the kids on her side if Dad says "sorry kids, can't teach you because your mother is being obstructive!"
Last edited by foxmoth; 20th Dec 2016 at 17:27.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All sounds thoroughly unreasonable. How/why does a court see fit to impose such an unnecessary and unfair restriction? I am surprised this is within a court's remit as there is nothing illegal or contentious in flying training. Religious instruction I can see being objected to under some circumstances, but flying???
Why the driving licence clause? Is this included for any other activity he may do with the kids? The whole thing is as arbitary and vindictive as requiring him to produce all his car docs before taking them for a drive, and unless he had some sort of history in driving/flying with incorrect paperwork I am astonished that a court would make such a wild sweeping restriction. If he is allowed to drive them in a car without this level of supervision it hardly seems reasonable to apply it to any legal activity in an aeroplane.
as to the questions my non legal feeling would be
a) of course they can, if he's not formally instructing but the court (wifey most certainly) might not see that as being within the spirit of the restriction.
b & c) “Authorised person” means—
(a) any constable;
(b) in any article other than article 259, any person authorised by the CAA (whether by name or by class or description) either generally or in relation to a particular case or class of cases; and
(c) in article 259, any person authorised by the Secretary of State (whether by name, or by class or description) either generally or in relation to a particular case or class of cases;
ANO, CAA UK 2016
Bear in mind that the above refers to persons to whom you are legally obliged to show these documents on demand.
You need to show your licence if you plan to hire a car or plane. They can't demand to see it, but part of the deal of hiring the car/plane is showing it voluntarily. No see, no hire. No compulsion.
Not that any constable would have a clue what to ask for or know what it meant if he did.
Article 259 appears to refer to operations of overseas registered aircraft and operations of registered aircraft overseas - does not seem to apply here.
Why the driving licence clause? Is this included for any other activity he may do with the kids? The whole thing is as arbitary and vindictive as requiring him to produce all his car docs before taking them for a drive, and unless he had some sort of history in driving/flying with incorrect paperwork I am astonished that a court would make such a wild sweeping restriction. If he is allowed to drive them in a car without this level of supervision it hardly seems reasonable to apply it to any legal activity in an aeroplane.
as to the questions my non legal feeling would be
a) of course they can, if he's not formally instructing but the court (wifey most certainly) might not see that as being within the spirit of the restriction.
b & c) “Authorised person” means—
(a) any constable;
(b) in any article other than article 259, any person authorised by the CAA (whether by name or by class or description) either generally or in relation to a particular case or class of cases; and
(c) in article 259, any person authorised by the Secretary of State (whether by name, or by class or description) either generally or in relation to a particular case or class of cases;
ANO, CAA UK 2016
Bear in mind that the above refers to persons to whom you are legally obliged to show these documents on demand.
You need to show your licence if you plan to hire a car or plane. They can't demand to see it, but part of the deal of hiring the car/plane is showing it voluntarily. No see, no hire. No compulsion.
Not that any constable would have a clue what to ask for or know what it meant if he did.
Article 259 appears to refer to operations of overseas registered aircraft and operations of registered aircraft overseas - does not seem to apply here.
Last edited by noflynomore; 19th Dec 2016 at 16:08.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: 55N
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are always two sides to the same story.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that a non-pilot barrister is incapable of understanding the relevant regulatory requirements for the operation of aircraft - it is not that more complex than some road traffic legislation.
Without knowing more, it is not entirely clear why or what the IO seeks to prevent - formal flying instruction per se, or simply being allowed to handle the aircraft. Either way, be careful that the IO is not construed by the court as being circumvented. As already stated, there is a statutory (and restrictive) definition of 'flight instruction'. Again, and already stated, there is a difference between those who can demand production of documents (usually in the course of enforcement duties) and a court order that makes a direction in respect of any or all of the documents - which must be obeyed.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that a non-pilot barrister is incapable of understanding the relevant regulatory requirements for the operation of aircraft - it is not that more complex than some road traffic legislation.
Without knowing more, it is not entirely clear why or what the IO seeks to prevent - formal flying instruction per se, or simply being allowed to handle the aircraft. Either way, be careful that the IO is not construed by the court as being circumvented. As already stated, there is a statutory (and restrictive) definition of 'flight instruction'. Again, and already stated, there is a difference between those who can demand production of documents (usually in the course of enforcement duties) and a court order that makes a direction in respect of any or all of the documents - which must be obeyed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, flynomore and foxmoth for your input, which were very positive, at a previous hearing the the district judge, an expert in aviation law (NOT) disputed if a girl aged 12 could could receive flight training, to which the father stated yes, but also stated that any flight training before the age of fourteen could not be counted towards the issue of a pilot's licence.
Unless the father is operating within an ATO or a registered facility can he actually give flight instruction that can be logged? If not then the question is academic as it is not an instructional flight.
I am not sure if you can still operate as a RF but the essence of my answer is the same, you have to train through an approved establishment, you cannot learn from an instructor alone unless he is approved to conduct training.
I might not have the correct phrases but I am sure you understand my meaning.
I might not have the correct phrases but I am sure you understand my meaning.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Do registered facilities still exist
We were going to be BTO's but apparently use of the word Basic upset Napoleonic law in France, so 'Declared' it'll likely be.
TOO
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been through a couple of divources, my experience has been that if you comply as much as possible with stupid demands and can show that these are really just wasting court time it gets the court on your side. Here it is easy to comply with the demands whilst pointing out that this is a highly regulated industry as the wife should know from being married to the person in question and she is really just being obstructive in making these requests.
HeliFirst
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lincoln & Norwich
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
on what grounds was restriction issued ??
surely not Safety as the kids can fly as passengers.
surely not Qualifications??
so its a family court? avoid confrontation
surely 'the children should be asked' if they wish to be taught to fly now or just to fly as passenger until older
surely not Safety as the kids can fly as passengers.
surely not Qualifications??
so its a family court? avoid confrontation
surely 'the children should be asked' if they wish to be taught to fly now or just to fly as passenger until older
Most of the requested documents were replaced by European documents, some as long as 16 years ago!
(a) UK CAA CofA
(b) UK CAA Medical
(c) UK CAA Registration Document
(e) UK CAA Flight Crew Licence
(b) UK CAA Medical
(c) UK CAA Registration Document
(e) UK CAA Flight Crew Licence
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foxmoth....good comment.
Up & Away ...... The reason this restriction was placed was that the mother, CAFCASS officer and barrister wrongly considered flight instruction as dangerous. But it is odd the instructor can fly unrestricted with his children as PAX.
Whopity....... I quite a agree but the learned barrister thinks all documents are from the UK CAA, and she isn't aware of a Permit to fly or what what a C of A consists of.
In conclusion, I think it is best to proceed as follows:
(a) Wait until the next hearing.
(b) Point out the relevant section of the ANO, and the mother is not deemed an authorised person and the mother is qualified to identify the documents.
(c) That all training would be under a FTO or RF, and hence they are required to ensure that all training is above board. The instructor is a RF in his own right apparently.
(d) Point out that the mother is using this as a time wasting exercise.
(e) The matter is really down to the children's wishes and feelings.
Up & Away ...... The reason this restriction was placed was that the mother, CAFCASS officer and barrister wrongly considered flight instruction as dangerous. But it is odd the instructor can fly unrestricted with his children as PAX.
Whopity....... I quite a agree but the learned barrister thinks all documents are from the UK CAA, and she isn't aware of a Permit to fly or what what a C of A consists of.
In conclusion, I think it is best to proceed as follows:
(a) Wait until the next hearing.
(b) Point out the relevant section of the ANO, and the mother is not deemed an authorised person and the mother is qualified to identify the documents.
(c) That all training would be under a FTO or RF, and hence they are required to ensure that all training is above board. The instructor is a RF in his own right apparently.
(d) Point out that the mother is using this as a time wasting exercise.
(e) The matter is really down to the children's wishes and feelings.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re point (b) above. The mother is not acting as a designated person and is not "demanding" production of the docs in the legal sense the ANO refers to. That is a legal demand to provide docs for inspection. She is requesting sight of them to confirm a personal requirement much as Avis requests sight of your driving licence rather than trusting your word. They can't demand sight of it at any time merely to inspect it as a police officer can.
It is clearly an exercise in making trouble, pointing that out should suffice. Instruction in flight cannot be made without the accredited posession of those docs by the flying school, it is not her business to set up as a private flight-ops inspector. What too, if the IP invited another QFI to do the job, would she be demanding his credentials too, or is this in fact a personal matter - something which again won't impress the court.
Would she do this for driving instruction? If not why not?
It is clearly an exercise in making trouble, pointing that out should suffice. Instruction in flight cannot be made without the accredited posession of those docs by the flying school, it is not her business to set up as a private flight-ops inspector. What too, if the IP invited another QFI to do the job, would she be demanding his credentials too, or is this in fact a personal matter - something which again won't impress the court.
Would she do this for driving instruction? If not why not?
(b) Point out the relevant section of the ANO,
Been there; the judge saw through it...
In 1999 my ex tried to get the court to ban me from taking my kids flying.
I read once that in criminal court we see bad people at their best, and in family court we see good people at their worst. Seems to be true.
In my case, the judge saw this was just an effort to lash out and hit someone where they enjoy life. My final order specifically permitted taking my children flying, though it did mandate following applicable rules. Although the paragraph was really redundant, I appreciated the judge's support and, I thought, obvious recognition of the ex's vindictiveness.
Now, my son would like me to teach him flying.
Good luck to whoever the OP is supporting!
I read once that in criminal court we see bad people at their best, and in family court we see good people at their worst. Seems to be true.
In my case, the judge saw this was just an effort to lash out and hit someone where they enjoy life. My final order specifically permitted taking my children flying, though it did mandate following applicable rules. Although the paragraph was really redundant, I appreciated the judge's support and, I thought, obvious recognition of the ex's vindictiveness.
Now, my son would like me to teach him flying.
Good luck to whoever the OP is supporting!
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: localhost
Age: 25
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As many have pointed out, I don't see why said "learned barrister" is asking for CAA documents?
Unless the aircraft is Annex II it's CofA will be EASA will it not? And I don't believe a CAA FCL has ever existed... An EASA one however
Unless the aircraft is Annex II it's CofA will be EASA will it not? And I don't believe a CAA FCL has ever existed... An EASA one however
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is the 'learned barrister' in family law is not aware of EASA, or permits to fly. It's a bit like I have come across district judges who do not understand rules on land registration and building regulations.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My advice would be:-
Provide the documents asked for (not hard, and cant see why not apart from being cussed).
Then point out to the court that you have been cooperative but in this highly regulated industry, as the wife should know, this should not have been needed and she was just being obstructive. This shows your freind in a good light and her as being vindictive.
The fact that they do not even know the correct authority also goes in your favour.
Provide the documents asked for (not hard, and cant see why not apart from being cussed).
Then point out to the court that you have been cooperative but in this highly regulated industry, as the wife should know, this should not have been needed and she was just being obstructive. This shows your freind in a good light and her as being vindictive.
The fact that they do not even know the correct authority also goes in your favour.
