Flying Companion License
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rev,
Once you are pilot in command, you can then let somebody take the controls - of course YOU remain PILOT IN COMMAND.
To be honest, everytime I let a "non-pilot have control", they don't have control. My hands/feet are still where they should be.
My god-father (non-pilot) and I flew across Africa some years ago. It was high on my agenda to teach him straight and level as the a/c I borowed had no wing leveller. Doug was v good and after a few hrs could point us at the same speck on the horizon and that left me free to deal with AIP's, charts and guidebooks for 9 different nations!
Stik
ps - an apolgy, I read a previous post of yours to suggest that after yr dad did the pinch-hitter course all hours were then loggable!
Once you are pilot in command, you can then let somebody take the controls - of course YOU remain PILOT IN COMMAND.
To be honest, everytime I let a "non-pilot have control", they don't have control. My hands/feet are still where they should be.
My god-father (non-pilot) and I flew across Africa some years ago. It was high on my agenda to teach him straight and level as the a/c I borowed had no wing leveller. Doug was v good and after a few hrs could point us at the same speck on the horizon and that left me free to deal with AIP's, charts and guidebooks for 9 different nations!
Stik
ps - an apolgy, I read a previous post of yours to suggest that after yr dad did the pinch-hitter course all hours were then loggable!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: wakefield
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stand to be corrected here but I believe that no person may control an aircraft unless they have the appropriate licence or are under the supervision of a QFI.
So having someone else to "lighten the load" and aviate whilst you navigate/comunicate would be illegal.
So having someone else to "lighten the load" and aviate whilst you navigate/comunicate would be illegal.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: England
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My local club used to offer a "pinch hitter" course to regular flying companions of members. It concentrated simply on landings, to enable the candidate to have a fighting chance of getting safely back on the ground should the pilot become incapacitated for whatever reason.
Not sure about the legality of non-qualified persons handling controls, but surely the point is that you can only argue the toss later if you are still alive to do so!
Not sure about the legality of non-qualified persons handling controls, but surely the point is that you can only argue the toss later if you are still alive to do so!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yorks is right, but in an emergency (almost) anything goes.
The basic idea of "Pinch Hitter" courses I think is good... and of course can only be taught by instructors.
Westy
The basic idea of "Pinch Hitter" courses I think is good... and of course can only be taught by instructors.
Westy
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dorset
Posts: 902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yorks.ppl
This is one that regularly appears on this forum - the great and the good (ie Those better than me) have cogitated long and hard and the consensus is that a non-pilot can be allowed to handle the controls, with the obvious provisos that the PIC IS still PIC (and is thus responsible for the conduct of the flight) and that the person handling the controls cannot book it as instructional time (or in fact log it in any way, shape or form). Fairly obvious common sense would suggest that the PIC handle the take off / landing and that the passenger is only permitted to do S&L / modest manoeuvering. If this permits the PIC to do some nav / flight mgt tasks (whilst maintaining lookout), then I would say that this is a good bit of crew resource management, plus it adds to the interest of the pax.
I stand to be corrected here but I believe that no person may control an aircraft unless they have the appropriate licence or are under the supervision of a QFI
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: wakefield
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure who the great and the good are but everything I have ever read is quite clear that you can't instruct on a PPL.
If your pax has no licence and is not qualified then he must be either a pax (if he doesnt touch the controls) or a pilot under tuition if he does, there is no other definition of his status available. If he is under the tuition or supervision of P1 then P1 must be a QFI.
If your pax has no licence and is not qualified then he must be either a pax (if he doesnt touch the controls) or a pilot under tuition if he does, there is no other definition of his status available. If he is under the tuition or supervision of P1 then P1 must be a QFI.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't seen anything that says a passenger can't handle the controls.
Just because I let a passenger fly straight and level, it doesn't mean that I am instructing them. I've no intention of teaching them how to fly, nor do they intend to learn.
As for safetly issues, I'd argue that letting a passenger fly straight and level leaves you with two hands free to do other tasks. It can only add to safety. I can think of one flight last year that I wouldn't have been able to complete, and would have returned home, were it not for the benefit of a passenger who could hold straight and level. It freed up my hands to do some on the wing (not literarly!) replanning.
You need a licence to be the commander of an aircraft. You need a FIR to instruct. But you don't need anything to handle controls in flight as far as I'm aware.
dp
Just because I let a passenger fly straight and level, it doesn't mean that I am instructing them. I've no intention of teaching them how to fly, nor do they intend to learn.
As for safetly issues, I'd argue that letting a passenger fly straight and level leaves you with two hands free to do other tasks. It can only add to safety. I can think of one flight last year that I wouldn't have been able to complete, and would have returned home, were it not for the benefit of a passenger who could hold straight and level. It freed up my hands to do some on the wing (not literarly!) replanning.
You need a licence to be the commander of an aircraft. You need a FIR to instruct. But you don't need anything to handle controls in flight as far as I'm aware.
dp
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: wakefield
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I see this now!
Its OK to let an unqualified person fly the plane as long as they know how to fly it but if they make a mistake you are not going to correct them or tell them about it because they dont want to learn and you cant teach, sounds very safe to me.
And its ok to fly into marginal conditions relying on a non qualified pasenger too!
Its OK to let an unqualified person fly the plane as long as they know how to fly it but if they make a mistake you are not going to correct them or tell them about it because they dont want to learn and you cant teach, sounds very safe to me.
And its ok to fly into marginal conditions relying on a non qualified pasenger too!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dorset
Posts: 902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, that's about it, because all PPLs have no common sense and are idiots!
We are talking about reasonably intelligent human beings exercising judgement here, not pretending to be instructors. If someone will enjoy their flight more, learn something about how an aircraft flies, etc - nothing in the rules to say that they can't touch the controls. I have regularly flown with Air Cadets who I teach Principles of Flight / Air Nav to, who have also had Air Experience Flights in Bulldogs / Tutors - I have no qualms about asking them to maintain an altitude / course and then giving them control. I then monitor / advise and undertake other tasks (radio tuning, talking to ATC, nav, FREDA checks, etc) - the flying experience is enhanced for them and I can safely undertake other tasks. No problem.
If they appear to have difficulty / conditions are marginal / ther is other traffic or we are a high workload phase of the flight, then I take back control. Easy.
Noone is suggesting that the PIC is acting as an instructor in these situations - just a little bit of Crew Cooperation!
We are talking about reasonably intelligent human beings exercising judgement here, not pretending to be instructors. If someone will enjoy their flight more, learn something about how an aircraft flies, etc - nothing in the rules to say that they can't touch the controls. I have regularly flown with Air Cadets who I teach Principles of Flight / Air Nav to, who have also had Air Experience Flights in Bulldogs / Tutors - I have no qualms about asking them to maintain an altitude / course and then giving them control. I then monitor / advise and undertake other tasks (radio tuning, talking to ATC, nav, FREDA checks, etc) - the flying experience is enhanced for them and I can safely undertake other tasks. No problem.
If they appear to have difficulty / conditions are marginal / ther is other traffic or we are a high workload phase of the flight, then I take back control. Easy.
Noone is suggesting that the PIC is acting as an instructor in these situations - just a little bit of Crew Cooperation!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And its ok to fly into marginal conditions relying on a non qualified pasenger too!
but if they make a mistake you are not going to correct them or tell them about it because they dont want to learn and you cant teach
Holding the controls is probably the least most important part of flying. Managing the flight is far more important.
Would you consider it necessary that an autopilot hold a flight crew licence?
dp
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yorks it is very common practise and the safety pilot course which is indorsed by both the CAA and other people in the know as being a good idea. The parting instruction to someone finishing the course is usually along the lines of make sure you have a shot next time you are up.
There is nothing in the ANO which says that the PIC has to be the one handling the aircraft. FO's can do it, students can do it, my granny can do it if she so wishes. But there is only one person who the buck stops at and that is the PIC.
And i think you maybe have some misinterpritations about what is actually in an FIC.
You turn up with 200 hrs under your belt and a full set of CPL or better exams. How much of those exams are about GA SEP proberly less than the PPL ground exams.
You then have to sit through a series of lectures
which is meant to cover the whole syllabus but unfortunatly it is the interpritation of the syllabus of the instructor.
While doing that you are taken in the air for 20 hours and shown how to break down a lesson into parts. If you haven't taught a practical subject before this could be a bit hard. If you have ever taught someone how to drive (which in my opinion is way more difficult than teaching someone how to fly, ex FI and ex HGV instructor). None of this is new.
All this is done with some person who has heaps of instructional hours and can fly the machine.
You then at some point go up with another FIC student and practise how far you can bend a C150 and nobody notice. I did actually do 5 hours of this mutial with someone on a FIC after having 500hours instruction under my belt. Huge difference, it was actually worth while doing. The repeated question was " students don't actually do that do they?" I would support a change to that rule and that mutial instruction is done with a current unrestricted FI playing student.
There is then a test which you show what you have learnt. I only know of one person who has failed this. But he was not a native speaker and .....
Then your let loose with Jo bloggs on the presumtion that you know what your doing. Most FI's leave the job just as they really do know what they are doing about the 700-1000hour instructing mark.
The first 100hours is a nightmare usually your standards are to high because your looking for Commercial standard. You don't have a clue how to teach landings beause all you did was patter them and do lesson 3-10 and PFL's all the time with a bit of Spinning thrown in. After 300-400 hours on trial lessons you don't give a **** what they do as long as you don't bust airspace or get outside you envelope which for most instructors is proberly outside the legal one. The punter gets to do what they like.
So there really isn't much difference with a PPL letting someone hold the stick compared to an instructor (Niether actually get taught how to do it). Both are PIC both know what they are doing and both won't let the person flyng get outside there own limits.
Its the person giving the information which is the difference, you can do all the courses going. A real instructor will be only be shown the way in the FIC to pass then proberly ignore the whole thing until they renew. A none instructor (on the FIC) type will be taught enough to survive until they get there first airline job. The folk that can teach will teach its in there nature
MJ
There is nothing in the ANO which says that the PIC has to be the one handling the aircraft. FO's can do it, students can do it, my granny can do it if she so wishes. But there is only one person who the buck stops at and that is the PIC.
And i think you maybe have some misinterpritations about what is actually in an FIC.
You turn up with 200 hrs under your belt and a full set of CPL or better exams. How much of those exams are about GA SEP proberly less than the PPL ground exams.
You then have to sit through a series of lectures
which is meant to cover the whole syllabus but unfortunatly it is the interpritation of the syllabus of the instructor.While doing that you are taken in the air for 20 hours and shown how to break down a lesson into parts. If you haven't taught a practical subject before this could be a bit hard. If you have ever taught someone how to drive (which in my opinion is way more difficult than teaching someone how to fly, ex FI and ex HGV instructor). None of this is new.
All this is done with some person who has heaps of instructional hours and can fly the machine.
You then at some point go up with another FIC student and practise how far you can bend a C150 and nobody notice. I did actually do 5 hours of this mutial with someone on a FIC after having 500hours instruction under my belt. Huge difference, it was actually worth while doing. The repeated question was " students don't actually do that do they?" I would support a change to that rule and that mutial instruction is done with a current unrestricted FI playing student.
There is then a test which you show what you have learnt. I only know of one person who has failed this. But he was not a native speaker and .....
Then your let loose with Jo bloggs on the presumtion that you know what your doing. Most FI's leave the job just as they really do know what they are doing about the 700-1000hour instructing mark.
The first 100hours is a nightmare usually your standards are to high because your looking for Commercial standard. You don't have a clue how to teach landings beause all you did was patter them and do lesson 3-10 and PFL's all the time with a bit of Spinning thrown in. After 300-400 hours on trial lessons you don't give a **** what they do as long as you don't bust airspace or get outside you envelope which for most instructors is proberly outside the legal one. The punter gets to do what they like.
So there really isn't much difference with a PPL letting someone hold the stick compared to an instructor (Niether actually get taught how to do it). Both are PIC both know what they are doing and both won't let the person flyng get outside there own limits.
Its the person giving the information which is the difference, you can do all the courses going. A real instructor will be only be shown the way in the FIC to pass then proberly ignore the whole thing until they renew. A none instructor (on the FIC) type will be taught enough to survive until they get there first airline job. The folk that can teach will teach its in there nature
MJ
Last edited by mad_jock; 26th Jan 2005 at 17:11.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: wakefield
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Jock,
It is all too apparent that what you say about instructors is true.
My own experiences bear it out, I did my whole training with an instructor who filled my head with all sorts of nonsense, I didnt descover how much untill well into my training when I met a proper instructor (semi retired ex cfi/examiner) who put me right
(and still does)
However that is not really the point I made. I simply said that I think it is not legal for a pax with no licence to handle the controls of an aircraft unless under the supervision of a flying instructor.
I stand to be corrected, but not by peoples views and opinions. Unless someone can show me where the laws of the air say that a non qualified pax can fly a plane then I remain convinced that it is illegal.
Our young friend who started this thread needs to be aware that he may be doing somthing illegal and all I was attempting to do was to give a warning about it.
It is all too apparent that what you say about instructors is true.
My own experiences bear it out, I did my whole training with an instructor who filled my head with all sorts of nonsense, I didnt descover how much untill well into my training when I met a proper instructor (semi retired ex cfi/examiner) who put me right
(and still does)
However that is not really the point I made. I simply said that I think it is not legal for a pax with no licence to handle the controls of an aircraft unless under the supervision of a flying instructor.
I stand to be corrected, but not by peoples views and opinions. Unless someone can show me where the laws of the air say that a non qualified pax can fly a plane then I remain convinced that it is illegal.
Our young friend who started this thread needs to be aware that he may be doing somthing illegal and all I was attempting to do was to give a warning about it.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 2nm due S EGLK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yorks,
In this country nothing is illegal unless explicit stated. So it remains for you to show the legislation which you believe prohibits the activities you mention.
Somebody already said that this has been done to death on this forum over and over again. I'm sure a search will reveal the answers.
Rgds,
TPK
In this country nothing is illegal unless explicit stated. So it remains for you to show the legislation which you believe prohibits the activities you mention.
Somebody already said that this has been done to death on this forum over and over again. I'm sure a search will reveal the answers.
Rgds,
TPK
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: wakefield
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simply trying to warn a fellow pilot of a potential problem.
Dont need to prove anything, to myself or anyone else.
R_R does though, (at least to himself) if he wants to allow pax to fly, especially if he is going to tell people what he is doing.
Just offering a note of caution, thats all, no big thing.
Dont need to prove anything, to myself or anyone else.
R_R does though, (at least to himself) if he wants to allow pax to fly, especially if he is going to tell people what he is doing.
Just offering a note of caution, thats all, no big thing.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yorks
I see where you're coming from but as stated by TPK you are normally deemed quite legal unless specifically told you are not. If this were not the case, PPL's, ratings ect ect would not have their "specific" priviledges stated and restrictions such as IFR flight would would not be worded to "specifically" require certain ratings, conditions ect.
Of course there are plenty of grey areas. One example is a PPL checking out another PPL on type. This must be deemed as instruction? but it has gone on for years and I've never heard of anyone falling foul of the law over it.
SS
I see where you're coming from but as stated by TPK you are normally deemed quite legal unless specifically told you are not. If this were not the case, PPL's, ratings ect ect would not have their "specific" priviledges stated and restrictions such as IFR flight would would not be worded to "specifically" require certain ratings, conditions ect.
Of course there are plenty of grey areas. One example is a PPL checking out another PPL on type. This must be deemed as instruction? but it has gone on for years and I've never heard of anyone falling foul of the law over it.
SS
A point or two here.
When I fly an aeroplane, I am...
- Handling the aeroplane
- Doing RT
- Navigating
- Managing the aircraft systems (checks, fuel, et al)
- Ensuring everybody else in the aircraft is happy and knows what I'm up to.
- Maintaining a running record of the flight.
- Continuously deciding whether the flight should continue as per my plan, or replanning.
There are very few stages in flight where the first of those takes the majority of my attention - primarily take-off, landing, and the occasional extreme manoeuvre. If I allow a passenger (and I often do) to fly the aircraft outside of those three brief and intense phases of flight I am still pilot in command, and I am still doing all of the difficult and important bits, I've just exchanged handling for monitoring my passenger's handling of the aeroplane.
Second point, the CAA's safety sense leaflet on care of passengers recommends giving an airsick passenger a task, or even letting them fly the aircraft. If CAA are happy to recommend it, it's hardly illegal.
Third point, last night I flew a Seneca simulator with a friend who is a retired Concorde training captain - he hasn't held a current licence since losing his medical about 5 years ago, although probably has 10-20 times my hours. If I were to take him flying (or I believe his son, who flies airliners for a living takes him light aircraft flying occasionally) can anybody think of any good reason he shouldn't handle the controls at any point in the flight, because I certainly can't. (Unsurprisingly, the sim didn't seem to give him many problems
)
For that matter I have another friend who is an engineer that writes flight simulators for a living - he has getting towards 1000 hours of unlogged simulator time, but has never soloed a real aeroplane. I have, with due caution, allowed him to fly circuits in one of my aeroplanes, and he's given me no cause to regret it. Not illegal, and not (in my judgement) wrong or dangerous - and those who know me will be well aware of my safety obsessions. (His checks and lookout are lousy mind you, and I'd certainly not trust him with those).
But in any of these cases, I'm the captain, and I'm responsible if anything goes wrong.
G
When I fly an aeroplane, I am...
- Handling the aeroplane
- Doing RT
- Navigating
- Managing the aircraft systems (checks, fuel, et al)
- Ensuring everybody else in the aircraft is happy and knows what I'm up to.
- Maintaining a running record of the flight.
- Continuously deciding whether the flight should continue as per my plan, or replanning.
There are very few stages in flight where the first of those takes the majority of my attention - primarily take-off, landing, and the occasional extreme manoeuvre. If I allow a passenger (and I often do) to fly the aircraft outside of those three brief and intense phases of flight I am still pilot in command, and I am still doing all of the difficult and important bits, I've just exchanged handling for monitoring my passenger's handling of the aeroplane.
Second point, the CAA's safety sense leaflet on care of passengers recommends giving an airsick passenger a task, or even letting them fly the aircraft. If CAA are happy to recommend it, it's hardly illegal.
Third point, last night I flew a Seneca simulator with a friend who is a retired Concorde training captain - he hasn't held a current licence since losing his medical about 5 years ago, although probably has 10-20 times my hours. If I were to take him flying (or I believe his son, who flies airliners for a living takes him light aircraft flying occasionally) can anybody think of any good reason he shouldn't handle the controls at any point in the flight, because I certainly can't. (Unsurprisingly, the sim didn't seem to give him many problems
)For that matter I have another friend who is an engineer that writes flight simulators for a living - he has getting towards 1000 hours of unlogged simulator time, but has never soloed a real aeroplane. I have, with due caution, allowed him to fly circuits in one of my aeroplanes, and he's given me no cause to regret it. Not illegal, and not (in my judgement) wrong or dangerous - and those who know me will be well aware of my safety obsessions. (His checks and lookout are lousy mind you, and I'd certainly not trust him with those).
But in any of these cases, I'm the captain, and I'm responsible if anything goes wrong.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 27th Jan 2005 at 10:20.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, circuit basher, pirateking and Genghis are quite correct:
(1) it is perfectly legal for an unqualified pax to fly an aircraft under the direct supervision of a licensed-but-not-instructor-qualified pilot;
(2) that pilot legally remains in command of the aircraft, and will carry the can in the event of any accident or incident;
(3) because of (2), most pilots exercise good judgment and tend to be relatively conservative about how much (1) goes on.
dublinpilot, good point re the autopilot.
(1) it is perfectly legal for an unqualified pax to fly an aircraft under the direct supervision of a licensed-but-not-instructor-qualified pilot;
(2) that pilot legally remains in command of the aircraft, and will carry the can in the event of any accident or incident;
(3) because of (2), most pilots exercise good judgment and tend to be relatively conservative about how much (1) goes on.
dublinpilot, good point re the autopilot.
