Giving passengers control
 

If you were speaking about letting a passenger in your car take over you might have a point, but you are taking an unnecessarily strict line, in my view

I've often let passengers take the controls. I brief them to give back control when I ask for it and have never had a problem. After all the most they can to is to go off track or up and down and I have hundreds of feet available to recover the situation. In one case I let a blind person fly and they loved being in control.

I would say that if I am flying in congested airspace or close to CAS then I take over

You are the pilot in command, it is your decision. If you are inexperienced then it is probably wise not to let others fly it and if its a school aircraft they may have something to say about it.There is no law to prevent it!

You're kidding, right? It is absolutely illegal to operate an aircraft without the necessary qualifications (licenses and ratings), unless you are a student performing a training flight with a certified instructor. Your being the "pilot in command" does not give you the authority to break the law (emergency situations notwithstanding).

If you mean "it's illegal but also unenforceable" (no CCTV in the sky yet, not even in the UK :E) then you might have a point.

If I am taking a non-pilot up for a ride such as friends, family etc, I am disappointed if they don't at least have a few seconds in what they think is "control". Clearly not near the ground or in the circuit or any other higher risk scenario. And my hands and feet are never far from the controls. I retain throttle and rudder, but the pax think they're flying when they're moving the yoke. A very clear brief and clear understanding is required. The smile in their faces is worth it every time.

Actually, absolutely no one is allowed to give control to a passenger. The student/instructor case is a completely different situation as a student is not just a passenger (for starters, he/she needs to have the right type of medical just to commence training).

Ciao,

Dg800

If I have passengers I often ask them if they want a go at the controls. I only do so if we are in straight and level flight, suitable weather, clear of busy airfields (where thats possible to determine) and controlled airspace. I always keep my hands on the controls and say I will follow through with them. That gives them the confidence that there is someone really in control. Tell them it only requires very slight movement on the yoke - and demonstrate it. If they're doing OK, loosen your control of the yoke, or let go completely but dont be too far away in case you need to take avoiding action. I dont see the harm in that, but it depends on your level of confidence, and your confidence in the other person.

Thats in contrast though to leaving them to fly the plane from the right hand seat responsible for keeping a lookout and navigation while you swing round and talk to people in the back for 5 minutes. That would be silly. Regardless of what happens, you are the PIC and are responsible for whatever happens.

Where is that stated?

Never heard that one in 30 years of flying...

Completely incorrect. A student pilot needs a medical before flying solo. Otherwise, anyone having a trial lesson as a birthday gift would need to have a valid medical.

BTW, in the UK it's clearly stated here:

The Air Navigation Order 2009

"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.
(2) An appropriate licence for the purposes of this Part means a licence which entitles the holder to perform the functions being undertaken in relation to the aircraft concerned on the particular flight."


There are exceptions listed next, but you won't find any exception for "passengers who want to have a little bit of harmless fun". :E Exceptions mostly deal with training.

The rules refer to "acting as member of the flight crew of an aircraft". If manipulating the primary controls does not qualify one as a "member of the flight crew" then the next one is on me. :ok:

Actually, that's correct where I come from (which means there is no such thing as a trial lesson around these parts), hence it cannot be completely incorrect. :ok:

Agree with AB here. I'm a pilot and volunteer with the Dutch charity "Stichting Hoogvliegers". We openly advertise that the chronically ill and handicapped children we fly with, are going to handle the controls once we're established in the cruise. We have openly discussed this and other matters with the Dutch authorities and they have no objection whatsoever.

Of course you need to apply common sense. For starters, we require that the children we fly with are able to understand spoken commands (in Dutch) and are able to execute these. We don't fly with children up front who might be exhibiting unexpected/uncontrolled behavior or who might have suicidal tendencies. We provide each pilot with a "bag of tricks" on how to deal with their passengers, how to subtly keep control of the aircraft while giving the impression that the passenger is flying, and how to get an unwilling passenger to relinquish control without resorting to violence. And we do stress that in the ultimate case they are allowed to resort to violence.

True. But "operating an aircraft" is a far broader subject than "manipulating the controls".

If letting a passenger having a go at the controls would be illegal, then we would be openly responsible for 5000+ breaches of the law. The evidence is out there on our website in the form of 5000+ trip reports so the government would have no problem prosecuting us. That this hasn't happened must be telling something.

There is a UK CAA safety leaflet which states that if a pax becomes air sick you should get them to fly it as this often reduces the sick feeling.

Then there is the recommendation that pilots who have done the safety pilot course for partners also practise occassionally post course.

Its not a problem in the UK.

That the authorities in the Netherlands are very tolerant and easy going? :) This would match the (somewhat stereotyped) view the world has of this country, so no surprise there.
The fact that something is tolerated does not necessarily mean it's legal. Clubs around these parts also used to offer passenger flights even if they have no AOC (obviously!) and they usually put a PPL and not a CPL holder at the controls. That only lasted until there was a serious accident with injured passengers and the PIC and the club's president ended up in court, where the presiding judge will judge the case based solely on the law and not on what's "tolerated". This immediately put an end to passenger flights being offered by flying clubs in the whole country, as they are illegal without an AOC (and have always been).

Ciao,

Dg800

The only legal definition of pilot in command refers to being responsible for the safety of the flight, there is no mention of having your hands on or manipulating the controls.

There is nothing in the law that says it is illegal to let a passenger manipulate the controls, you as pilot in command are still the one responsible for the safe operation of the flight.

This is different from driving or any of the other comparisons drawn as they don't have dual controls, and usually have a provisional licence requirement.

True. But if you specifically ask the authorities about the legal status of a certain action, and they have no objection, you stand a pretty good case.

So they breached the rules on "aerial work", not those on "manipulating the controls". Completely different thing.

You don't say? :sad: :ugh:

I was opining that what is "tolerated" is not necessarily "legal" in the strictest sense, and I used that example to support the point I was trying to make. It seemed pretty clear to me, but maybe my English is not really up to the task?

Ciao,

DG800

If operating the ailerons and stabiliser is sufficient to make you part of the flight crew, then we be better start getting auto pilots to do skill test. :hmm:

I think you are seeing what you want to you rather than what is written.

Was that paid-trial-lesson-by-a-PPL-without-AOC ever "tolerated" then by the authorities? Or did they simply not know what was going on, and stamped it out as soon as they learned what was happening?

In our case it's not so much "tolerated" but "encouraged" or even "applauded" by the government.

Actually piloting the aircraft does not make you part of the flight crew? What would then, pray tell?

Of course it was known, as it was always well advertised.

Holding a licence.

So, if you don't hold a valid license, then you could legally fly any plane (even the big iron) as not having a license does not make you part of the flight crew? Are you guys for real? :eek:

Let me spell it out for you: manipulating the flight controls means acting as part of the flight crew, and to do that legally regulations clearly and unambiguously state that you must hold a valid and appropriate license.

I'm outta here, this is getting too silly and quite pointless. :ugh:

Signing the tech log and being the pilot in command which allows you to delegate duties as you feel fit.

One of which could be read the map for me please or keep he wings level while I work out where the :mad: we are.

Actually there is:

UK ANO August 2012 Part 6 Article 50
Note it doesn't say "act as the Pilot in Command" it says "act as a Pilot"

I personally don't see anything wrong with a pilot, who is comfortable so doing, allowing a passenger
to try out the controls - but one wonders what the intention of the above wording was.

An aircraft needs to be flown by a legal crew. So you can't fly an aircraft without a licence (except on a solo endorsement) on your own.

But if the legal flight crew requirements have been satisfied, then it's perfectly legal for you, as a passenger, to manipulate the controls. It doesn't absolve the flight crew from staying legally responsible so it would be, well, a little careless of them to leave the flight deck and go take a nap for instance.

Have to say that letting passengers having a go at the controls is something that is typically forbidden by SOPs of large airlines though. And by law passengers are not allowed to enter the flight deck of a commercial airliner in the first place.

I prefer to let my passengers do a loop rather than a roll. There's less chance of things going wrong there, it's an easier skill to master (pitch only, not a complicated pitch/roll combination), and it's less nausea-inducing. So you can let them try it a few times until they get it right.

Most heavy tin only require all the required seats to be filled for takeoff and landing.

Public transport flights have a different set of rules.

Please point out in the applicable rule (which has already been posted twice, BTW) where it does refer to "flying on your own"? You're just making stuff up to match your own view of the issue. :ugh:

I'm a low hour PPL so my opinion isn't necessarily the most relevant, however I also have a good understanding of civil law.

My personal interpretation of the ANO quote above is that being part of the 'flight crew' means a qualified person who is required as part of the crew to operate the aircraft legally, i.e. if P2 is required, or a navigator etc. Being a passenger and manipulating the controls doesn't make you part of the flight crew.

My understanding is therefore that it is not in breach of any law to allow a passenger to do so, just that it remains the PIC's responsibility to ensure the aircraft remains safe at all times.

My father manipulated the controls of my plane over the weekend for a fairly lengthy amount of time. Only when we were at a sensible height and away from traffic, circuits etc. He doesn't hold any qualifications, although admittedly has significantly more hours than me even though their age would be measured in decades, not years!

my view is let the pax have the controls for a few minutes, as long as the aircraft is not put in any danger there is no harm in letting them have a feel for what flying is all about. It's no worse than putting the aircraft in the hands of the A/P.

To those who say no they should not be in control, do you make your pax fly in the back or if you do let them in the front do you handcuff them so that they cant touch anything?

This is one of many reasons why GA is going the way of the dodo, people take the interpretation of the rules to the extreme because they are scared of what might go wrong, even though GA flying is safe.

Flying is meant to be fun, not a chore.

fats

Nope.

He just has a different out look on the rules or shall we say lack of them about giving a pax a pole.

In alot of cases the flying of the aircraft isn't the hard bit straight and level.

Its the navigating and talking on the RT which is the hard bit.

Most would not complain about the pax doing the Navigating and the PIC checking it. All merry hell lets loose when its suggested that the pax does the easy bit flying the plane while the PIC does the technical bit working out where they are and where they are going.

There seems to be alot of discussion on whether someone is
part of the "Operating Crew" or part of the "Flight Crew!".

This is due to DG800's quote of Article 50 from the ANO 2009.

This is out of date

Article 50 from ANO 2012 is different

At our place which is run as a pretty tight ship for a number of reasons pax aren't allowed to handle the controls below 500'.

Personally I let pax fly straight and level if they want to. I tend to fly with the same group of people, some of whom are not pilots but who aren't strangers to aircraft; some have clocked up a considerable amount of time in light a/c. On a long leg it gives them something to do and it gives me a rest. And no, I don't mean I go to sleep. They can all fly a heading and altitude as well as I can, it's not rocket science.

I find it uniquely British, this obsession with crossing the 'i's and dotting the 't's. If I let one of my mates who probably has as many hours as me take over for a leg at 5,000' straight and level the bloody thing isn't going to explode is it.

Besides the fact that my quote was slightly out of date (thanks to Level Attitude for pointing that out) and the wording has been recently changed from "flight crew" to "pilot", your interpretation will have a completely unqualified and untrained person piloting the aircraft from take-off to landing while the (appropriately qualified) PIC just sits in the other seat dozing (not much else you need to do on a non-complex SEP to fly a simple circuit other than operating the primary controls and the throttle).
My interpretation will only allow properly qualified and trained (and current) personnel performing any and all functions required to safely complete the flight.
Guess which interpretation the judge would lean towards (assuming the old wording were still in effect)?
You can only interpret up to a certain point before it all gets too silly.

To those complaining that "this is all too strict, where is aviation going to these days?": the OP was explicitly asking about the legality of this since he got several conflicting opinions on it, so I'm merely (and actually, for a change) directly addressing his question. If you want, you can start your own thread titled "Do you think it's OK to give passengers control of the aircraft even if it might be illegal?" :ok:

Doesn't it strike you as a little strange that you're the only person holding this view on a forum full of very experienced pilots (not classing myself as one!)?

My interpretation doesn't mean that at all. As I said, it's the PIC's responsibility to ensure the safety of the aircraft at all times. Letting an unqualified person take off and land whilst they are dozing would not be doing so. Where as letting an unqualified person fly straight and level whilst they monitor traffic, controls and instruments would be.

I spend a lot of time in court, albeit not aviation related, and have a very good understanding of how decisions are reached. A judge will not 'lean' in any direction, they will take the literal meaning of the rules as they are written.

In a situation where a non-qualified pax was flying and subsequently crashed a plane, the judge would decide whether the PIC had maintained the safety of the plane or not (most likely not, if the pax had crashed it) and base the outcome on that fact alone.

I've never read such a load of bollox as some posts on here. It is perfectly legal for a passenger to operate the flying controls under the supervision of a qualified pilot.

Such an unqualified operator is not in any way acting as flight crew - the qualified pilot remains the legal flight crew at all times and it is up to that qualified pilot to take back control at any time he is not happy with the passenger flying it.

I would proffer a word of caution, though, if you don't know the passenger. many years ago I took 3 girls flying in the Chipmunk (one at a time, of course, in the rear seat). The first two went fine, and each had a go on the stick. The 3rd was noticably more nervous (hence her going last I guess).

As with the first two I let her try the (sensitive, in the Chippy) stick while I followed her through retaining a light hold on the stick in the front cockpit.

She whacked the stick right over before I could stop her, paniced. and screamed and held on with a vice-like grip as we rolled almost inverted. She was easily overpowered and I soon had us staright and level, but if it had been a beefy bloke it might have had a different outcome.

Reminds me of a similar incident in a two seat glider on the launch, sadly with fatal results for both occupants. The instructor hadn't given over control either. One of the chances you take in a twin stick tandem aircraft.

This is one of the things that we brief our pilots on, so that they can brief their pax properly.

During the ground briefing I tell my passengers that only very small movements are required. Not like a PlayStation at all. In the air I first let them feel me moving the controls, and only then do they get the controls. With my hands very near and initially blocking all excess movement.

Only when they've shown that they can restrain themselves will I let my hands wander further from the stick. But never in a position that I cannot reach the controls quickly, and I also keep my feet on the rudder pedals at all times.

Talking about which, when flying with children make sure they can't reach the rudder pedals, OR that their seat is so close to the rudder pedals that they cannot extend their knees fully and "lock" the pedals. And in the latter case, check they don't have their feet on the brakes when landing.