Are you though, if you’re just observing then surely the instructor would be PIC? My equivalent would be a line check, the training captain on the jump seat is the most senior pilot on board but are categorically just there as an observer, and the rules are very clear on that. Should we fail the outbound entirely, they could then jump in the LHS and train the RHS on the return, then they would be PIC.

Please, stop now...

Probably meant he just has to be onboard for his insurance to cover.... otherwise it would be a thrid-party flying the aircraft, and it would either not cover, or be more expensive?

Question was as my first post. The insurance company were asked if the PIC can be sat in the back (with two other pilots in the front). They said yes, no problem.

If it's an insurance issue, then I suspect that the term PIC is confusing things. For insurance purposes, Sam R. needs to be on board but may be in the backseat. For operational purposes it's probably best to have one of the frontseaters act as PIC. Personally, that's the way I would approach it, although there may will be better ways to solve this.

Edit: just thought of a way to check the legality of this.... damage the aircraft a bit during this operation and claim it on your insurance. :E

I am not a lawyer and have never claimed on an aviation policy :ok: but sadly I do have to argue the t@@@ daily with insurers. You are correct in that normally you must be legal in all matters and any policy even eg house contents can be nullified if you are behaving outside the law. However that does not stop an insurer doing what they want ie the opposite and insuring illegal acts. It seems from my earlier post that the insurer may not have totally understood the situation, which raises the additional risk (to policy holder, not insurer of course) that if the insurer can claim in any way you might have misled, not totally informed, or otherwise said anything in a way they can even claim not to have understood, then again you are not insured. I always assume an insurer will not pay out ever, and then on occasions I have a happy surprise.

None of which answers OP's question :ugh:

In Oz my reading of the regs does not require the PIC to be sat at the controls, only that the required number of certified pilots be at the controls, they define the PIC simply as "Pilot responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time", as mentioned previously s/he can be in the bunk. My answer to the OP is yes.

I can't think of any regulations that prohibit the pilot in command being in the back seat, UNLESS the POH (which has legal standing of-course) requires the PiC to be in a particular seat.

But I'm reminded, as I often am, of an old boss of mine at Boscombe Down who gave me the advice "Before making any decision in aviation, always run through your mind the phrase 'at the subsequent board of inquiry' ".

In that case, I think that anybody who thinks that an FI in the back, with no qualified pilot in the front is acting professionally as PiC, is daft. But the case suggested above of an FE in the back checking an FI in the front who is instructing a student sat next to them: the FE being Captain. Well it's unusual, but no more problematic than the Captain of an airliner taking a rest break whilst two qualified pilots remain in the cockpit mid Atlantic.

Another instance might be a 2-seat tandem with no dual controls, current and qualified pilot at the controls, FI or CRI conducting a biennial from the other seat, logging PiC. What's wrong with that?

The quoted original case (four pilots in a PA28) sounds distinctly dodgy, as it sounds very much like four mates going flying together, and the one who happens to be an instructor trying to log everything. You are only, as an instructor, PiC in two circumstances. Either you're flying the thing yourself, or it is formally briefed, etc. as an instructional sortie. Simply being on board with an instructors rating does not make you able to log it as Captain. I've had a couple of instances where (as a CRI but really just going flying with a friend) they *afterwards* asked if they could count it as their biennal - to which I have always said no (but sweetened it by offering to do the biennial, properly briefed, for free in their own aircraft whenever they like, but strangely nobody has ever taken me up on that).

G

The attached link makes for important reading. It was impossible for the examiner to be sat forward facing and secured in their seat whilst observing. The pilot seats are screened off from the passenger seats. The examiner in this situation would have to be sat sideways on a rear facing passenger seat, with a slackened harness, whilst peaking through the central access. I believe the FAA changed the rules following this accident to prevent FAA examining from the rear seats.

https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/cras...rside-1-killed

In the end I think that is the 'most correct' answer.

If I understand this in Post #1 Sam says that the GIB is the only one insured. I assume that if one of the highly qualified pilots at the controls breaks the aeroplane, the insurance company will walk away. That's how it would work in my car.

Why doesn't the PIC just fly the damn aircraft......

Insurance companies in my experience do not procrastinate on how/who/when a pilot is the PIC. They keep it simple and insure in accordance with the national authority regulations. They will of course sometimes stipulate restrictions, such as experience on type, but these will be clearly set out in the policy. They normally grant exemptions when asked to insure a safety situation say: when a type is single pilot but there is only one set of controls. This may include a CRI/instructor or another approved person to be in the non flying seat during a conversion, which most underwriters encourage.

In multi-crew aeroplanes regulation makes it clear who/when a pilot is the PIC but this is not comparable to single pilot operations, whatever the view of barrack room lawyers. For me it is a complete no-no for the PIC to ride in the rear seats with two others sat at the controls and it can never be justified..

'orse pucky and if it isn't it should be

I think insurance compagnies consider the Person in Command rather then the Pilot in Command.
Who is responsible during the operation?
Clearly there’re is no need for it to be the person manipulating the controls.

Note to EASA multi-pilot operators:

Part-FCL no longer contains the term commander, except in some of the syllabus templates.
Part-OPS refers to commander in the usual manner, but the definition is missing.

"I think insurance companies consider thePerson in Command rather then the Pilot in Command.".

That is ridiculous, how can you be a person in command if you are not a qualified pilot and for the type or class of aeroplane. The pilot in command must always be at a set of controls and be able to take control. Any argument to the contrary is unfounded, stupid and ridiculous.

Tell that to the airlines, military, business jets operators,...

Little quick on the trigger there boss.
I never said the person in the back does not need hold a license.
Generally the person manipulating the controls aka “flying” is considered the “pilot” of the aircraft. The “pilot” does not need to be the PIC.
If the PIC is in the backseat he/she obviously needs to hold a valid medical/pilot certificate appropriate to the operation.

FAA:
and
ICAO Annex 2:

I'll believe that when you can quote a relevant aviation authority directive, until then arketip has the correct information.