Flying with passengers rule....

[Torque Tonight]

You seem to equate having hands on the controls as being PIC. That is not automatically true. Who signed for the aircraft?

[BabyBear]

TT, is your question to me? I have no such confusion. I refer back to the legality of the PIC letting a 'passenger' take off and land. I can't see it being technically feasible according to the law.

It certainly wouldn't be acceptable with someone without flying experience.


BB

[BackPacker]

I've been searching for this a bit further, and under EASA the rule has changed. The phrase "sole manipulator of the controls" is no longer there. Instead, the full article is:

FCL.060 Recent experience
[...]
(b) Aeroplanes, helicopters, powered-lift, airships and sailplanes. A pilot shall not operate an aircraft in commercial air transport or carrying passengers:
(1) as PIC or co-pilot unless he/she has carried out, in the preceding 90 days, at least 3 take-offs, approaches and landings in an aircraft of the same type or class or an FFS representing that type or class. The 3 take-offs and
landings shall be performed in either multi-pilot or single-pilot operations, depending on the privileges held by the pilot; and

So the phrase has been changed into "...carried out..." and that would suggest not just manipulating the controls, but actually being in command.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...01:0193:EN:PDF

(And for reference, the quotes from LA are not the actual EU regulation, but are the accepted means of compliance and guidance materials. That document can be found here: http://easa.europa.eu/agency-measure...20Part-FCL.pdf

Both documents should ideally be read together, but for some reason EASA doesn't present them as such. Heck, even the font type is different.)

[Level Attitude]

You seem to equate having hands on the controls as being PIC. That is not automatically true. Who signed for the aircraft?

Ok TT I'll bite:

I hope you will accept that someone who is operating an aircraft - particularly
as "sole manipulator of the controls" during Take Off, Approach and Landing
is acting as a Pilot. Lets call them "Pilot Flying".

Even though they cannot legaly carry passengers you are saying this doesn't matter as the
person sitting next to them is actually the "Pilot In Command".

In this situation there are, by your reasoning, two Pilots on board:
"Pilot Flying" and "Pilot In Command"

But in single-pilot operations there cannot be two pilots. In this case
"PF" and "PIC" have to be the same individual. Therefore whoever is the
(one) pilot has to be legal for all aspects of the flight because the
other person on board is just a passenger.

AMC1 FCL.060(b)(1) Gives two specific exemptions to this:
PIC is an Instructor or PIC is an Examiner.
There is no exemption given for PIC is a valid License Holder.

If the PF cannot take passengers then they have to fly solo (PIC themselves) or fly with an Instructor or Examiner as PIC.

"Highly experienced and capable pilot wants to go on a trip with a friend, and fly the return leg, but has only done two Take Offs and Landings in preceeding 90 days (due weather, holidays, etc). So friend flies to destination, lands, then hands control to experienced pilot to initiate a take off, fly a circuit and land. Experienced pilot now relying on being in currency flies the leg back to home base. Unfortunately, just after touchdown, during his landing roll a herd of deer dash across the runway (it does happen) causing experienced pilot to swerve, leave the runway and hit a parked aircraft. Accident completely not the pilot's fault but the AAIB note his lack of flying in the last three months and look closer at his experience - The CAA then ask why he had a passenger on board when he wasn't in currency and the insurance company won't pay up because it was an illegal flight and CAA start asking questions of the friend about
allowing a non-qualified person to fly the aircraft when they are not an Instructor.........."

"Ah!" But experienced pilot says "There was this post on PPRuNe where TT
explained this was perfectly allowable"

This thread has turned out to be very useful as it has elicited the actual
rules with references on where to find them. Especially the one
from Mr Average:

Little known fact is that, if you do your 3 with an instructor, passengers may not be carried GM1 FCL.060(b)(1) Recent experience

But I don't quite see that the discussion is so important. If a pilot is current in all ways, except the 90 day rule for carrying passengers, then, surely, it must be easiest and cheapest to fly the requirement solo. Why want to have anyone else on board?

[Level Attitude]

CAP 804 Section 1 Part E Page 13
9 Guide to log annotations Case F
Pilot on flight deck but not as P1, P2, SPO or FE:
(i) Acting as ‘required’ Flight Navigator (under the Air Navigation Order)
(ii) Pilot supervising Co-pilot activities
(iii) No duties assigned (Supernumerary)
- - - - Enter time in ‘Any other flying’ or spare column and annotate ‘SNY’

he's the captain throughout, and to pre-empt the next argument, he does not need to be an instructor to hand over control to another person. I would record such a flight in my logbook as SNY, the times would not count towards any totals but my landings would count to requalify me.

How does flying an aeroplane equate with "no duties assigned"?

[englishal]

Why complicate matters??? If you are out of currency, either go up with a FI and do your 3 T/O's and L/D's and log it as P/UT and you are current again, go up solo and do them and log them as PIC, or have your pilot mate in the second seat, but remain PIC, and do them as above.

Technically you are not allowed to carry a pilot mate as they would be a PAX and this is not allowed, but in reality you are far better off taking a current pilot with you who can spot you and is a second set of eyes that just jumping in a plane and going for it.

I dunno why the rules don't allow for a "safety pilot" for these situations. Anyway no one really cares and if you are sensible you wouldn't dream of flying PAX unless you were current and safe.

[mad_jock]

The only way this will be resolved is when there is a court case and thelegal aspect has been resolved.

Currently its happening pretty regularly.

There isn't a safety case to stop it.

It is legal to do it solo with no backup. And it doesn't involve any none pilots who arn't aware of the risks.

Its not really done inside the confinds of a club or school enviroment because its easier to use an instructor and club rules will require a check out before 90 days.

If this was a huge issue the insurance policys would say its not possible.

As for none licensed pilots landing and taking off without an instructor next to them it must be happening daily with medical failures, pilots, kids, familys, etc all doing it with a licensed pilot next to them Number of accidents in the last 10years zero.

oh by the way the fcl 60 rule there is a hard rule for none qualified pilots landing and taking off which is done through the aircraft flight manuals and an excemption given while training under a trto. Nothing for sep

And carry out to me is just that you have done them there is nothing to stipulate in what capacity.

[italianjon]

The real question here, is if the runway is long enough, can you leave your mate at the Holding Point, then lift-off and land straight three times down the full length, taxi back to the holding point and pick up your mate.

Making sure it was in the logbook for currency though... A 1 minute flight with 3 landings would raise an eyebrow, but is there actually an definition that says a flight has to be of a certain length... in effect you're doing 3 Wright Brothers' Kitty Hawks, and I am sure they were allowed to log it

[mad_jock]

I have done 3 to and landings in 5 mins in a tommy doing figure of eights on cross runways bad wx circuits. And that was with an instructor on board in the lhs. Way way outside his personal flight envelope, the cfi had given him the job to get him to wind his neck in about his own personal handling level.

[BackPacker]

I hope you will accept that someone who is operating an aircraft - particularly
as "sole manipulator of the controls" during Take Off, Approach and Landing
is acting as a Pilot.

Show me the regulation where it says that during the flight, only "a pilot" may handle the controls, or that somebody handling the controls is (for the purpose of the regulations) considered "the pilot". Either a generic rule or one that is specific for take-off and landing. I'd be most interested, but I have never come across such a rule.

I regularly let my passengers (some of which are well below the legal age to be pilots anyway) handle the controls. That doesn't make them pilots. That doesn't compel them to write anything in their logbooks. And there is no limitation anywhere that I know of, that would prevent me from letting them do the take-off or landing as well. As passengers. And as sole manipulators of the controls.

(Well, that last statement is not quite true. I know of one specific aircraft where the POH directs you to remove the controls from the RHS if the RHS is occupied by a passenger. So you would not be flying according to the POH if the passenger would handle the controls, as his controls should not be there in the first place.)

And to further reinforce my point, the ANO always talks about "pilot" in almost every article. Sometimes made more specific by terms such as "pilot in command", "pilot flying" and so forth. This suggests a person who holds a valid and current pilots license for whatever class or type of aircraft we're dealing with. But in the currency requirements all of a sudden the whole word "pilot" has disappeared and all we are left with is "sole manipulator of the controls". Why would that be, do you think?

ANO Schedule 7, Part A, section 1, subsection 1, Private Pilots License:

(2) The holder may not—
[...]
(g) fly as pilot in command of such an aeroplane carrying passengers unless—
(i) within the preceding 90 days the holder has made at least three take-offs and three landings as the sole manipulator of the controls of an aeroplane of the same type or class;[...]

(This is from section 1, "United Kingdom Licences". But the wording in section 2, "JAR-FCL licences" is the same.)

Anyway, the ANO has been superseded (or will be superseded shortly) by EASA regulations which are worded differently, so the whole discussion will be moot then.

[robin]

I suppose hidden behind this question is what is currency? and is this being driven by the high cost of flying?

There is the legal definition which seems clear - so many hours in the second year inc a flight with an instructor or an LPC - and, for passenger-carrying, 3 take-off and landings in the past 90 days.

The discussion is about the detail of how you can do it.

Most clubs would not rent out to someone who hadn't flown as P1 or P2 in the past 28-45 days without a check with an instructor. That could be taken as a money-making income stream for the club, though probably it is part of their insurance.

In my group rules we use 45 days as a guideline limit mainly because we had a pilot who, for reasons unknown, would try to bang in his 3 landings in a 20 min flight every 89th day to stay legal and to avoid flying with an instructor. He was a cr*p pilot getting worse through lack of currency, so we changed the rules.

Now, as I am a super skygod, as are many here, I feel perfectly able to go for longer periods without being checked but I fly enough and regularly enough not to get close to the 90 day limit on passenger flying and I will be flying through the winter (once I get a seaplane).

[mad_jock]

Can we try and all use the correct terms for capacity of pilot.

PIC - Captain equals old P1
copilot - Copilot old P2
Dual - under instruction old P/ ut

You cannot be copilot in a sep in private operation in theroy it is possible in commercial but I have never heard of it.

[englishal]

As a general comment to currency - I work away for 5 weeks at a time, and during that 5 weeks cannot fly at all. So call it 6 weeks of periods of no flying. However when I am home I can fly every day if I want, and during the 5 weeks at home generally bang out quite a few flights. In my experience my currency doesn't suffer much during the 5 weeks of no flying, and I think that the more flying one has done, the longer "currency" lasts. It is very important for a fresh PPL to fly regularly imho.

Having said that, I make sure I use the checklist for the first few flights, rather than do it all from memory (which one should do anyway, but I know the aeroplane inside and out seeing as I own it)- I once flew half way back from Plymouth with a stage of flap out as I forgot to put them away after take off....No big deal but I did wonder why we were not going as fast as we should have been

[robin]

I once flew half way back from Plymouth with a stage of flap out as I forgot to put them away after take off....No big deal but I did wonder why we were not going as fast as we should have been

Me too.....

[mad_jock]

i have seen folk that fly 20 hours a week do that. 99% of the time it happens is when ATC comes out with some none safety related pish below 1000ft agl.

[RTN11]

Think of a simple case, two pilots in currency go flying, one signs for the aircraft and takes responsibility, but the other actually does all the hand flying including the take off and landing.

After the flight, an investigator from the CAA comes sniffing round because of reports of low flying, or because the insurance was a week out of date, or the ARC was out of date, whatever. Who is the investigator going to go for?

There can certainly be a difference between the Pilot In Command from the legal sense, and the pilot flying in the physical sense, even in what is legally a single crew aircraft. It is the PIC who would have the legal responsibility for the flight, including ensuring his licence and currency was adequate for the flight he was about to undertake.

[englishal]

I can't remember the last time I signed for an aircraft, we just get in an go (after appropriate pre-flight visual inspections of course).

[smithgd]

Show me the regulation where it says that during the flight, only "a pilot" may handle the controls, or that somebody handling the controls is (for the purpose of the regulations) considered "the pilot". Either a generic rule or one that is specific for take-off and landing. I'd be most interested, but I have never come across such a rule.

It took me a while but....

I can't find anything in EASA Part-FCL that defines pilot, passenger or handling the controls.
I can't find anything in the CAA ANO that defines pilot, passenger or handling the controls.

But there is a definition of pilot in ICAO ANNEX I chapter 1.1=
"Pilot (to). To manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft during flight time."


Article 50 within Section 1 part 6 of the ANO states:

"....person must not act as a pilot of an EASA aircraft that is registered in the United Kingdom without holding an appropriate licence granted, converted or rendered valid under the EASA Aircrew Regulation........"

It also covers being a student and none EASA aircraft later in the text!

Hope that helps!

[mad_jock]

Not really because ICAO isn't law in europe. The law is compliant apart from the stuff we don't fancy which we file a difference on which stands at 7 double sided pages for the uk at the moment in jeps.

And I would bang back that a pilot of a ship directs the manovering of the vessel but has a helmsman to do the control inputs.

Those of us that are happy will continue doing it and those that arn't will continue not doing it as is our right as PIC.

Unless you know of any accidents which have been caused by such practises there really isn't a case to stop this practise.

[flybymike]

It certainly seems ironic that a qualified and current pilot may fly as a passenger with a medically restricted one and be expected to save the day if the other collapses at the wheel, but yet the same pilot may not fly with another who is fit and well just in case they both crash and perish because one of them has only done two landings in the last 90 days (maybe even both of them yesterday)