Pilot In Command
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imagine another scenario - Aeroplane enters IMC. Pilot A (LHS) does not have an IR but pilot B (RHS) does. Are people really saying that Pilot B should sit back, and relax as the aeroplane plummets to the ground because he cannot become PIC in the air? I don't think so......
There is currently no clear requirement in law for the PIC to be nominated for a private flight, at least in the way that there is on a commercial flight. However, one of the Essential Requirements of the EU Basic Regulation (which is already EU law) is: "Before every flight, the roles and duties of each crew member must be defined. The pilot in command must be responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft and for the safety of all crew members, passengers and cargo on board." There is, therefore, a legal obligation on every aircraft operator to nominate the PIC before flight. Exactly how this is to be done may be detailed in Part-ORO, Subpart-NCO but, as yet, that hasn't been published.
Irrespective of whatever finally appears in print, in the event of an incident or accident it will be the legal responsibility of the aircraft operator to show evidence that the requirement was complied with. If there is no written record this will be difficult to do.
Irrespective of whatever finally appears in print, in the event of an incident or accident it will be the legal responsibility of the aircraft operator to show evidence that the requirement was complied with. If there is no written record this will be difficult to do.
Here's a real example (the other player is a Ppruner but I'll leave it to him whether to declare himself or not). I was right hand seat - as it happens Captain and Instructor, but in the left hand seat was a PPL/owner acting as if Captain. At the end of a looooong leg, where we were aiming into a fiddly strip, he went around three times and was clearly struggling to get it in. I suggested politely that I took control, he agreed, and I landed it. That was the right thing to do for the safety of the flight - and it would have been no less right if he'd been Captain, which he was qualified to be.
G
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course not, PIC and handling pilot are not the same thing. No reason why A can't give B control while in IMC.
If Pilot A were to declare an emergency due to entering IMC then he would be entitled to depart from the rules of the air in order to deal with that emergency which would include presumably giving control to Pilot B even if his license was not current. Who could enter it in their log book would probably not seem important.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal, where does "sole manipulator of the controls" come from?
Are you confusing PF and PIC?
I see no reference to sole manipulator of the controls in the ANO section as follows:
“Pilot to remain at controls and be secured in seat
93[snip]
(2) The commander of an aircraft to which this article applies must cause one pilot to remain at the
controls at all times while it is in flight.”
[snip]
Chris N
Are you confusing PF and PIC?
I see no reference to sole manipulator of the controls in the ANO section as follows:
“Pilot to remain at controls and be secured in seat
93[snip]
(2) The commander of an aircraft to which this article applies must cause one pilot to remain at the
controls at all times while it is in flight.”
[snip]
Chris N
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
englishal
Why do you think you have to be "sole manipulator of the controls" to be the pilot-in-command of a SPA? You're going to have to quote a reference (from the devil) for me to go along with that one.
I would think virtually every PPL holder, has taken up friends and family, then given them a go at the controls. Nothing wrong with that, not illegal, don't need to be an instructor, if it's not used towards the requirements for a licence or rating.
Every flight I do as a FI, I'm PIC of a SPA, but never "sole manipulator of the controls".
Why do you think you have to be "sole manipulator of the controls" to be the pilot-in-command of a SPA? You're going to have to quote a reference (from the devil) for me to go along with that one.
I would think virtually every PPL holder, has taken up friends and family, then given them a go at the controls. Nothing wrong with that, not illegal, don't need to be an instructor, if it's not used towards the requirements for a licence or rating.
Every flight I do as a FI, I'm PIC of a SPA, but never "sole manipulator of the controls".
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to declaring emergencies, yes that's perhaps getting away from a realistic scenario for this. However, A is perfectly entitled to declare an emergency, at any time he feels it appropriate. In that case A could ignore any rule he wished
However, A doesn't need to do that to let B take control, if A deems that to be the safest course of action.
ANO PART 22 AIRCRAFT IN FLIGHT Rules of the Air
160 (3) It is lawful for the Rules of the Air to be departed from to the extent necessary:
(a) for avoiding immediate danger;
160 (3) It is lawful for the Rules of the Air to be departed from to the extent necessary:
(a) for avoiding immediate danger;
Moderator
I would think virtually every PPL holder, has taken up friends and family, then given them a go at the controls. Nothing wrong with that, not illegal,
The definitions:
A person is either a:
"flight crew member" - means a crew member assigned to act as pilot or flight engineer of an aircraft during flight time
or a:
"passenger" - means a person, other than a crew member, who is carried on board an aircraft;
(no middle ground on that)
Then...
401.03(1) Subject to subsection (2), no person shall act as a flight crew member or exercise the privileges of a flight crew permit, licence or rating unless
(a) the person holds the appropriate permit, licence or rating;
(b) the permit, licence or rating is valid;
(c) the person holds the appropriate medical certificate; and
(d) the person can produce the permit, licence or rating, and the certificate, when exercising those privileges .
Some time ago I was read the riot act by a Transport Canada inspector for letting my buddy fly the 182RG he owned (and worse 'cause I let him fly left seat) after he had his medical suspended. TC and I agreed to disagree, 'cause there was no way they could prove their accusation, but I got the warning....
The person with the license flies the plane
Now I'm not saying that I abide by that regulation all the time, but it is written....
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting...
Here in Europe, a common "scheme" seems to be that a PPL embarks on a VFR flight, but carries a passenger in the RHS who has an IR, and this enables them to request an IFR clearance should they need one due to weather etc.
I always thought this was dodgy unless the passenger was provided for by the insurance (e.g. named on the policy) because the evidence trail is clearly present (ATC tapes) on who was PIC, so if there was a prang on landing, the LHS would cross his fingers and hope that nobody pulls the tapes...
Whereas if you just let a passenger fly the plane for a bit (which frankly everybody does, sometimes) there is no evidence trail.
More importantly, in the event of a prang in which everybody but the said passenger gets killed, the passenger does not have a financial incentive to admitting that he was effectively PIC after all, and this is vital because people will make up all kinds of stories if they can get a bigger personal injury payout, and under the UK Civil Aviation Act passenger liability hangs on the establishment of pilot negligence.
Here in Europe, a common "scheme" seems to be that a PPL embarks on a VFR flight, but carries a passenger in the RHS who has an IR, and this enables them to request an IFR clearance should they need one due to weather etc.
I always thought this was dodgy unless the passenger was provided for by the insurance (e.g. named on the policy) because the evidence trail is clearly present (ATC tapes) on who was PIC, so if there was a prang on landing, the LHS would cross his fingers and hope that nobody pulls the tapes...
Whereas if you just let a passenger fly the plane for a bit (which frankly everybody does, sometimes) there is no evidence trail.
More importantly, in the event of a prang in which everybody but the said passenger gets killed, the passenger does not have a financial incentive to admitting that he was effectively PIC after all, and this is vital because people will make up all kinds of stories if they can get a bigger personal injury payout, and under the UK Civil Aviation Act passenger liability hangs on the establishment of pilot negligence.
The illegality of passengers handling the controls in Canada has been raised before. The fact is however, Canada is in a small minority - in most countries it is not illegal.
G
G
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
after a deadly accident where the PIC was not 100% clear, Germany changed it's laws, as mentioned before. Still this subject gets discussed constantly.
Basically, PIC is the pilot flying in the seat that the plane manual declares as the seat for flying solo. If that is not defined, then PIC is the LHS in most planes, RHS for helicopters, front seat for most gliders (as I said, plane manual determines otherwise). The exception is of course training flights where the instructor in the RHS is then PIC.
Basically, PIC is the pilot flying in the seat that the plane manual declares as the seat for flying solo. If that is not defined, then PIC is the LHS in most planes, RHS for helicopters, front seat for most gliders (as I said, plane manual determines otherwise). The exception is of course training flights where the instructor in the RHS is then PIC.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London UK
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In post 8, Pilot DAR said:
Let me see if I understand this Canadian thing.
I catch an Air Canada flight from Heathrow to Toronto. There I am, a passenger, happily sipping a G&T or three.
Now, if the two guys/gals up front are behind on their paperwork, and no other PPLs are on board, according to Transport Canada I become PIC!
This must be my only chance of becoming an airline Captain!
... but he was surprised to receive the formal punishment as PIC, when no one thought that he was PIC during the flight.
I catch an Air Canada flight from Heathrow to Toronto. There I am, a passenger, happily sipping a G&T or three.
Now, if the two guys/gals up front are behind on their paperwork, and no other PPLs are on board, according to Transport Canada I become PIC!
This must be my only chance of becoming an airline Captain!
Here in Europe, a common "scheme" seems to be that a PPL embarks on a VFR flight, but carries a passenger in the RHS who has an IR, and this enables them to request an IFR clearance should they need one due to weather etc.
FCL.600 IR — General
Operations under IFR on an aeroplane, helicopter, airship or powered-lift aircraft shall only be conducted by holders of a PPL, CPL, MPL and ATPL with an IR appropriate to the category of aircraft or when undergoing skill testing or dual instruction.
Operations under IFR on an aeroplane, helicopter, airship or powered-lift aircraft shall only be conducted by holders of a PPL, CPL, MPL and ATPL with an IR appropriate to the category of aircraft or when undergoing skill testing or dual instruction.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot DAR
Sorry I should have perhaps qualified my comment with a reference to the UK, we do sometimes forget that things differ in other countries, although it's interesting to find out. However the OP is in the UK, so I thought that perhaps set the scene a bit for their stated scenario.
Sorry I should have perhaps qualified my comment with a reference to the UK, we do sometimes forget that things differ in other countries, although it's interesting to find out. However the OP is in the UK, so I thought that perhaps set the scene a bit for their stated scenario.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On various matters, this is where I come out for the UK. As it is a long post, I state my conclusions first, and quote the UK ANO bits at the end. I am a bit disappointed that previous posters have not answered all the points in my post number 16, so what is here is my own interpretation for those gaps. Please feel free to correct, with legal quotes, anything I have wrong.
------------------
Signing out as PIC: no legal requirement to do so.
Techlog to show PIC before the start of a flight: no legal requirement to do so.
In GA power: take off with one person (A, say) as PIC; and hand over to another (say B) during flight, without landing between: permitted (Note 1 below).
Each would log (in their personal logbooks) their own time as PIC. (Note – PIC is not the same as PF.)
AIUI, any PPL can let somebody else fly, but remain PIC. (Note 2 below)
If a second (licensed) pilot is on board, and has access to sufficient controls, he/she can if they agree take over as PIC. If they do not so agree, they cannot be made to. (See Note 3 below).
This does not preclude them taking over anyway, e.g. in case of incapacity, or to save their own skin under the general exemption for emergency covered by the ANO.
In UK gliding, the ANO exempts gliders from some of the above. I do not propose to dwell any more on that in this post.
------------------
Note 1, re A as PIC handing over to B as PIC during flight, without landing between.
My conclusion is drawn partly from the ANO, and partly from the general UK law principle that something is permitted if not specifically forbidden.
First, this is not permitted for public transport:
“Public transport – operator’s responsibilities in relation to crew
95.—(1) The operator of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom must not permit the aircraft to fly for the purpose of public transport without first designating from among the flight
crew a pilot to be the commander of the aircraft for the flight.”
Second, I can find no similar limitation for private flights as in most GA. Therefore, PIC can change during flight for the latter.
Each would log (in their personal logbooks) their own time as PIC. (Note – PIC is not the same as PF.)
-----------------
Note 2, re any PPL can let somebody else fly, but remain PIC.
The PPL must remain at the controls:
“PART 6
Flight Crew Licensing - Requirement for Licence
Requirement for appropriate licence to act as member of flight crew of aircraft registered in United Kingdom
50.—(1) Subject to the exceptions set out in articles 51 to 60, a person must not act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom without holding an appropriate
licence granted or rendered valid under this Order.”
But nothing here or elsewhere that I can find precludes allowing a non-flight crew member (i.e. a passenger) also being at the (duplicate) controls, as long as the PIC can keep control too.
----------------------
Note 3, re a second (licensed) pilot is on board, and their responsibilities.
If they do not agree to act at some point as a member of the flight crew before the flight begins, they cannot be made to. I am sure that UK common law or something precludes anybody being forced to undertake a responsibility like this if they have not so agreed first.
Furthermore, if such a second licensed pilot is present, and has the same or more qualifications as the nominated PIC, that is fine. The second person does not have to be a member of the flight crew, regardless of how highly qualified they are.
If they agree to be part of the flight crew they do not have to be PIC (e.g. they could be radio operator), again regardless of how highly qualified they are.
If they agree to be PIC for part of the flight, they can. This covers the case of the IR person becoming PIC when the original non-IR pilot is approaching IMC. The changeover should be before IMC is entered, if foreseeable. If not foreseeable, it is an emergency and the usual exemption applies anyway.
----------------
Chris N
------------------
Signing out as PIC: no legal requirement to do so.
Techlog to show PIC before the start of a flight: no legal requirement to do so.
In GA power: take off with one person (A, say) as PIC; and hand over to another (say B) during flight, without landing between: permitted (Note 1 below).
Each would log (in their personal logbooks) their own time as PIC. (Note – PIC is not the same as PF.)
AIUI, any PPL can let somebody else fly, but remain PIC. (Note 2 below)
If a second (licensed) pilot is on board, and has access to sufficient controls, he/she can if they agree take over as PIC. If they do not so agree, they cannot be made to. (See Note 3 below).
This does not preclude them taking over anyway, e.g. in case of incapacity, or to save their own skin under the general exemption for emergency covered by the ANO.
In UK gliding, the ANO exempts gliders from some of the above. I do not propose to dwell any more on that in this post.
------------------
Note 1, re A as PIC handing over to B as PIC during flight, without landing between.
My conclusion is drawn partly from the ANO, and partly from the general UK law principle that something is permitted if not specifically forbidden.
First, this is not permitted for public transport:
“Public transport – operator’s responsibilities in relation to crew
95.—(1) The operator of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom must not permit the aircraft to fly for the purpose of public transport without first designating from among the flight
crew a pilot to be the commander of the aircraft for the flight.”
Second, I can find no similar limitation for private flights as in most GA. Therefore, PIC can change during flight for the latter.
Each would log (in their personal logbooks) their own time as PIC. (Note – PIC is not the same as PF.)
-----------------
Note 2, re any PPL can let somebody else fly, but remain PIC.
The PPL must remain at the controls:
“PART 6
Flight Crew Licensing - Requirement for Licence
Requirement for appropriate licence to act as member of flight crew of aircraft registered in United Kingdom
50.—(1) Subject to the exceptions set out in articles 51 to 60, a person must not act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom without holding an appropriate
licence granted or rendered valid under this Order.”
But nothing here or elsewhere that I can find precludes allowing a non-flight crew member (i.e. a passenger) also being at the (duplicate) controls, as long as the PIC can keep control too.
----------------------
Note 3, re a second (licensed) pilot is on board, and their responsibilities.
If they do not agree to act at some point as a member of the flight crew before the flight begins, they cannot be made to. I am sure that UK common law or something precludes anybody being forced to undertake a responsibility like this if they have not so agreed first.
Furthermore, if such a second licensed pilot is present, and has the same or more qualifications as the nominated PIC, that is fine. The second person does not have to be a member of the flight crew, regardless of how highly qualified they are.
If they agree to be part of the flight crew they do not have to be PIC (e.g. they could be radio operator), again regardless of how highly qualified they are.
If they agree to be PIC for part of the flight, they can. This covers the case of the IR person becoming PIC when the original non-IR pilot is approaching IMC. The changeover should be before IMC is entered, if foreseeable. If not foreseeable, it is an emergency and the usual exemption applies anyway.
----------------
Chris N
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But only the qualified pilot can legal fly the aeroplane under IFR unless undergoing instruction
With regards to this and the earlier case I am not sure that the "qualified" pilot by definition must "carry the can". I think the can carrier needs the service of a good barrister.
Two pilots set off together and clearly agree that pilot A is PIC. Pilot A enters IMC, but is not qualified to do so, and there is an accident. Pilot B is instrument qualified but didnt know pilot A wasnt. It would be quite ridiculous for pilot B to be liable, any more than if it turned out pilot A's medical or license had expired. The key would be whether or not it could be demonstrated who was in command, or who was most likely to have been in command. Obviously this could prove difficult if both pilots disagreed as to who was in command, or they died. However, while not conclusive, who was in the LHS would be significant. Were I the judge if the charge was the pilot in the RHS was in command I would want to see some reasonable evidence that the RHS pilot was accustom to flying the aircraft from the RHS and some reason as to why he was so seated (assuming of course this was not a student instructor scenario). On the whole it is rare for RHS command in private flights however it might be so argued retrospectively and almost always in my experience the pilots would have had some good reason for the RHS pilot being in command if that is what they had itended.
If you find yourself in command in the RHS then make the arrangement very clear and be prepared to "carry the can" if anything goes wrong. If you are in the LHS and think you are not in command make very certain the other pilot knows he is in command and is qualified to be so.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji, I suspect it is arguable.
On the one hand, if a PPL can let a non PPL handle the controls provided the PPL still has controls and can override, why would that not also apply in IMC? It might come down to a court having to rule whether the extra risks of loss of control in IMC make it somewhere on the scale between injudicious (not necessarily illegal?) and reckless endangerment (which is illegal).
The ANO says this:
“Flight crew licence requirement – Exception for dual flying training
53.—(1) A person may act as pilot of an aircraft of which the flight crew required to be carried by or under this Order is not more than one pilot for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant or renewal of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion or variation of any rating in a pilot’s licence within the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, without being the holder of an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under this Order, if the conditions in paragraph (2) are satisfied.
(2) The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are that—
(a) the aircraft is not flying for the purpose of commercial air transport, public transport or aerial work other than aerial work which consists of the giving of instruction in flying or the conducting of flying tests;
(b) the person acts in accordance with instructions given by another person holding a pilot’s licence granted under this Order or a JAA licence, in each case being a licence which includes a flight instructor rating, a flying instructor’s rating or an assistant flying instructor’s rating entitling that other person to give instruction in flying the type of aircraft being flown;” [snip]
The fact that this is the only exclusion to “act as pilot” (not PIC, just a pilot) suggests that no other exclusion is permitted, so only a IR-instructor can let a non-IR licensed other person fly in IMC unless a court rules it is not dangerous. IMHO. But I am not a lawyer – where are they when you need one?
Chris N.
On the one hand, if a PPL can let a non PPL handle the controls provided the PPL still has controls and can override, why would that not also apply in IMC? It might come down to a court having to rule whether the extra risks of loss of control in IMC make it somewhere on the scale between injudicious (not necessarily illegal?) and reckless endangerment (which is illegal).
The ANO says this:
“Flight crew licence requirement – Exception for dual flying training
53.—(1) A person may act as pilot of an aircraft of which the flight crew required to be carried by or under this Order is not more than one pilot for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant or renewal of a pilot’s licence or the inclusion or variation of any rating in a pilot’s licence within the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, without being the holder of an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under this Order, if the conditions in paragraph (2) are satisfied.
(2) The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are that—
(a) the aircraft is not flying for the purpose of commercial air transport, public transport or aerial work other than aerial work which consists of the giving of instruction in flying or the conducting of flying tests;
(b) the person acts in accordance with instructions given by another person holding a pilot’s licence granted under this Order or a JAA licence, in each case being a licence which includes a flight instructor rating, a flying instructor’s rating or an assistant flying instructor’s rating entitling that other person to give instruction in flying the type of aircraft being flown;” [snip]
The fact that this is the only exclusion to “act as pilot” (not PIC, just a pilot) suggests that no other exclusion is permitted, so only a IR-instructor can let a non-IR licensed other person fly in IMC unless a court rules it is not dangerous. IMHO. But I am not a lawyer – where are they when you need one?
Chris N.
Where does it say so?