TNF

That's the most pathetic and ridiculous post I have read on this forum.

I read the report in Flyer about this accident with great interest and I can see nothing in it whatsoever that has any relationship to this topic.

If anything, and IF the AAIB's guess was correct, then letting a passenger have a feel of the controls would have perhaps avoided this. But that's a big IF as the AAIB don't know the cause of the accident, they only know what happened to the airframe and know that replicating the control inputs to create the loadings would require extreme stop to stop movements with the wings at maximum loading.

And you are suggesting that letting a passenger have a feel of the controls, whilst you remain Pilot in Command, could result in this happening?

I also think this one has run its course. There's no definitive ANO text, everyone does it, no one has crashed/been prosecuted and lives have been saved because passengers had a basic understanding of the controls.

BS,

You have beaten me to it, but I wholeheartedly second those sentiments.

It seems that some folks seem keen to quote AAIB investigations in an attempt to support their points of view, without taking the effort to ensure that their facts are correct and applicable to the discussion.

FD

bar shaker:

If "that's the most pathetic and ridiculous post" you've read then I humbly suggest that you've not read much else on PPRuNe - there's loads worse out there.

Flyin' Dutch:

Fair enough, I posted a bit of a non-sequitur, without much explanation, but to be honest most of the time the folks out there do their own analysis of posts anyway, and I hardly think this is the worst example of thread creep I've seen. I DO think the accident report is relevant to this discussion, and I think I've got my facts right.

Let's put the legalities aside - there's a sort of consensus developing that no-one really knows 100% for sure if it's prohibited or allowed in the ANO, but as long as you don't let anything stupid happen or no-one finds out you're ok.

Now for some of the practicalities. In the types I fly, the RFM says the duals must be removed if the passenger is not rated. For clarity and completeness, these are R22s and R44s (and the passenger must be helicopter rated, not type rated), which I grant you are a tad more unstable than your average spamcan, but the principle still applies.

I'm assuming our pilot is an average sort of bod, not a test pilot nor recently discovered by anthropologists. The pilot in this accident had 224 hours - not a novice - and he'd flown 7 hours in the last 3 months, with one hour in the last 28 days - that tallies with my sort of currency when I was flying f/w and I think it's about the norm, maybe slightly low, for PPLs (any firmer figures much appreciated).

The aircraft went from straight and level to in flight failure in less than 5 seconds of deviating from straight and level flight. That is quick. You're both right (bar shaker and FD) in that there was no firm cause found. The conclusions paragraph of this particular report states No other more reliable cause for the accident is given - if there were a conclusive cause, I wouldn't be writing this post. Reading between the AAIB lines, I think the only way it can be read is that IS the most likely cause.

You have grounds perhaps to accuse me of not directly relating a "look mum, we're straight and level and granny's flying the aeroplane" type of scenario to a "oh sh1t, where's the ground gone while I've been looking out the window" sort of scenario, but that's about it.

My point I suppose is - talk about this sort of thing with an instructor before you actually do it. If they don't think it's a good idea, don't even bother. If they agree to it, then brief it first with the instructor as to what you're going to do THEN brief the passenger fully, preferably with the instructor in attendance. When the moment comes if you feel the least bit unhappy, don't bother.

As a pilot develops experience, then fine, expand the envelope. you know if you're happy with the situation and are 110% vigilant at the time the passenger is handling the controls, then the mostly likely outcome is a safe return to earth and a memorable flight. But, to paraphrase the AAIB, "other outcomes should not be dismissed".

Last paragraph. I promise. For my part, until I'm an instructor, I'll not be letting other people pole when I carry them as passengers on a private flight, and if I can remove the duals, then I will.

Of course being an Instructor they have all the answers? The moment someone has a FI rating it gives them all the answers? I don't think so, it only comes with experiance and there are many PPLS out there with way more hours and experiance than some of the Instructors I have come accross.

The point I am making is that in the case that TNR Fairy quoates we don't know what went wrong but from the description of the incident I doubt even "super instructor" could have solved the problem in the time it took the aircraft to break up.

I think that particular case was a very bad example and was more an attempt at panic mongering.

I would also agree that I would not want to give the controls of any R22 or R44 that I was flying to a passenger as they are so unstable, but a fixed wing aircraft is stable by its nature.

TNF

Well its irrelevant now as we have even more ridiculous things to enjoy...


Mate, I really think you should take up a safer hobby. Something like Cross Stitch, maybe.

Can I be so bold as to suggest a completely different sequence of events? The passenger did not lean back to talk to the rear seat passenger and then pull himself forward again by grabbing the yoke. Instead the inputs were from the newly qualified pilot (albeit with a lot of flying in the year since qualifying) who decided to show his work colleague a negative G move, despite having no aerobatic training.

"Here, watch the pencil float off the dash top"

Va, Yoke full back, hold for a second, yoke full forward.

"Sh1t, where's the wing tip gone?"


Just another hypothesis which is equally invalid when talking about allowing your passenger to experience the controls whilst you remain PIC.

Sorry if my dig seems personal but I see no need to sensationalise this debate with irrelevant AAIB reports. Now if you could show me an AAIB report which stated that the Passenger In Command caused the accident I may sit up and listen.

I am so thankful to be able to read this forum.

I could not sleep all night worrying about the high risk I have exposed myself to all these years by letting non licensed people steer the airplanes and helicopters that I have flown for a living. ( I have even let non licensed pilots steer an R22 on floats...oh my God what was I thinking? )

Thank God I read the forum this morning, I am on the way to our airport to receive advice and training from a certified flight instructor, its never to late to correct bad habits and dangerous thinking.

Now I just need one more bit of advice.

There are two flight schools here and both schools have brand new very low time instructors on duty, I am not sure which instructor has the most experience, should I just flip a coin?

Or should I blindly just walk up to the first one I meet and rest assured that everything will be wonderful now that I have a flight instructor approved by Transport Canada to fine tune my decision making?

Chuck

I can't believe this has gone on for 5 pages. The simple answer is "yes", passengers can have a go, obviously you should trust them, they should be briefed properly and only given control when you're not busy etc, but its a yes.

People can say that this may cause accidents but thats ridiculous because if you're going to be like that loads of things cause accidents, like crossing the road without a zebra crossing but there's no law against it and there shouldn't be. The chances of a passenger on the controls causing an accident are absolutely minimal and if you don't want to take the chance then don't let your passengers take control, but there shouldn't be a law against it.

Obviously the best thing to do is erect a complex series of (JAR approved) screens, similar to a London bus drivers cage, so that the PAX has absolutely no possible contact with any control in the cockpit. Just imagine you weary PAX having a good old stretch and accidentally catches the mixture control, or he stretches too far and accidentally deflects the rudder to full stop.

Christ, doesn't bear thinking about does it? Heaven forbid that he starts sneezing, and accidentally causes the yoke to be pushed fully forward while in the process of wiping his nose......:D

Common sense......

Cherio
EA

Tiger, the question posed by Genghis was about where was the relevant ruling on this topic.

Despite 5 pages of bad tempered unsubstantiated nonsense nobody (myself included) has come up with the solution. Is it legal or not?
Whether it is sensible is totally dependant on the circumstance. A newly minted PPL letting a mate "have a go" is concerning, but it isn't necessarily going to cause an accident.
Law is generally written for the lowest common denominator and in this case I suspect that the powers that be would prefer only qualified people at the controls, but any law like this is basically unenforceable, so it makes it pretty irrelevant.

If people use their common sense then there is no issue to argue about.

It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that if something isn't expressly prohibited, it isn't illegal. As no one has been able to point to any specific regulatory provision, I'd say that it is fairly safe to permit a pax to handle the controls.

Now admittedly, 'they' could go after a pilot under some sort of catch-all provision prohibiting "reckless" or "negligent" conduct, but absent unusual circumstances it would likely be a tough sell before any fair-minded judge or tribunal.

BTW, who among us hasn't asked a pax to take the controls when you need a short break or have to check a chart or approach plate, etc. That's what happens in the real world, surely? I wouldn't let a non-pilot handle the takeoff or landing, but cruise is another matter.

MLS,

I think you have hit the nail on the head, but unfortunately, as has been discovered by others that don't have their roots in the UK, there seems to be an overwhelming desire to have everything regulated to the 'n'th degree over here.

One of the main differences in attitudes I noticed when I settled on these lovely shores a decade ago was the existence of the jobsworth, a phenomenon not previously encountered by me. 'If I haven't been told I should or can do it, I am not going to!'

Ah well, in the for the time being I do what I have been doing, and hope for the best, whatever that may be!

FD

With regard to the accident report referred to by Nr Fairy.

About 30 years ago my instructor told me of the time he had been hired to fly a man and his 2 children in a C172 on a "sight-seeing flight". The man asked to go towards a certain town where they lived.

Once they were up to height and near the town, the man tried to force the aircraft into a vertical dive. A very desperate struggle ensued, as you might imagine!

The situation was resolved when the instructor used the cockpit fire extinguisher as a baton across his deranged passenger's forehead. It was very fortunate that the aircraft held together.

Turned out the man's wife had just left him and he decided to finish it all and take the kids with him in a spectacular way.

I'm not suggesting that a similar thing happened here, but who knows what did?

Can I add my support to the campaign to nominate this as the most bonkers and pointless multi-page thread of 2003? (Sorry, Genghis)

Can you give a passenger a go? YES.

Er, that's it. If you really need to qualify that answer, add "when it's safe to do so". In other words, don't say to granny: "I can't be arsed to recover from this inverted spin/fly under this motorway bridge/shoot this approach to minima/whatever, so you do it".

Guess what: you won't find that anywhere in the Big Bumper Book of Law n'stuff for Pilots. Rejoice, people, for most of you live in the UK or in other civilised places such as Canada, OZ etc where the law about everything (not just flying) operates in this simple way: everything is allowed unless it is specifically not allowed. Hence there is no "ruling" on this subject and no need for one. The answer truly does lie in the realm of the bleedin' obvious.

One contributor on page 4 above suggested that the ANO or some other (unidentified) legal instrument contains wording prohibiting passengers handling controls. The text which that contributor "quoted" does not exist. He or she may have had in mind a garbled version of Article 21(2)(c) ANO. If anyone really wants a legal explanation of why that Article does not mean that your granny cannot have a go, I can provide one (DIY clue: read Art 21(1) first), but hasn't this all gone on too long already?

I have been following this thread and just re read it.

I wish I could think of something interesting to say or add.

I cant - its all been said.

I do however remember the thrill of that first visit to the cockpit as a kid half way across the Atlantic. The terrorists put a stop to that.

The CAA could put a stop to my friend "having a go on the controls" under my supervision. I hope they don’t.

Simple. [I include my brain in that statement]. There has to be a pilot in command, who has total responsibility for all that happens during the flight. If he choses to allow an unqualified person to use the controls, then it's his responsibility. If he doesn't have the skill to dig himself out any hole ceated by his passenger, then it's his lookout. QED.

You cannot legislate for every eventuality, especially if the rule cannot be enforced; which it can't, unless you have a CAA observer on every flight...

In other words, let your passenger have a go if you feel confident in briefing him or her what to do; but go no further than your (realistic) capabilities.

The way things are going we'll all be forced to carry Air Marshals before long - I hope, through genetic engineering, they are breeding tiny, light 'mini me' style marshals for us weight conscious PFA'ers - frankly, they could come in handy for those essential low fuel drain checks and anti terrorist underside oil removal... Mmm I want one!

:D

Kingy

Like Tiger_Moth can't believe this has gone on for 6 pages.

Simple enough question asked about pax handling controls, with PIC not instructor.

Yes go ahead, not a problem. As stated give a proper handover brief and do this at a safe altitude until your pax has gained some experience and confidence.

However, your passenger can't claim the hours towards a licence. Time could be noted as SNY or OBS (supernumery or observer) with the time going in "any other flying" if they wished to keep a record.

I am not aware of any written official law (ANO etc) to prevent this, writing to the CAA isn't going to help anyone.

Remember though you are the "Pilot in Command", if your passenger does cause a problem - it's your fault!

Passengers taking control?
 

I just checked out this thread, and I have a few observations.

Firstly - Having considered all the statements, I must admit to having a feeling of despair! Here we are, a well qualified and mentally healthy (I hope!) community, debating the existence, or non existance of some piece of legislation that exercises yet more control over what we can and cant do.

We recently celebrated the 100th anniversary of flight, when two individuals just upped and decided that they would "have a crack at it". I am left wondering if we would all be enjoying the privileges of flight if they had been subjected to the raft of legislation that encumbers our everyday living.....imagine the wringing of hands at the Department of Transport (or whatever they are called this week!) and the required permits, High Viz Jackets, Health and Safety Risk Assesments, ("hmmm, you will have to get that exposed propeller guarded, and the sound levels emitted by that engine are far too noisy - it needs an acoustic hood!")

Before I get flamed, let me add that much of this is said tongue in cheek, as I realise that some degree of legislation is required for the benefit of the public at large, but I venture that we now go too far in regulating members of the public.

I note from contributors such as Chuck (Take my hat off to you sir!) and others from around the world, and see a refreshing stance, that places the burden of responsibility on the individual. Why ask for regulations, or give the impression that further regulation is required? We are all equipped with the faculty of common sense, and perhaps we do not use it enough? I have in the past, allowed passengers to fly the aeroplane that I am responsible for, and why shouldnt I? As far as I am concerned, I am not instructing, and I still remain legally responsible for the safe conduct of the flight. Naturally, I use my common sense to establish that the passenger is not a drooling half wit, before allowing them to take the controls, whilst I follow through.

However, safety is always paramount, and I accept that there may be occasions when it would not be prudent to allow an unqualified person to fly the darned thing!

Having said that, I now wish you all a very happy and safe 2004, and will now go back to filling in my immigration paperwork for Canada......and NZ, and Australia......

All the best!

Tailwinds and blue skies

Skyyacht,

Couldn't agree more. A perfect way to end this thread I think (if you ignore what I've just written).

Happy New Year

Skyyacht:

Great post!

I live on Vancouver Island and I am stuck in the house because we have ten inches of snow that just fell in the last 24 hours.... We very seldom get snow, especially that much... and my fu..ing Suzuki Sidekick four by four is sitting in a garage getting a new transmission.....

By the way I must go out later and get the snow off my five Windmill Palm trees that are in my front yard.....they do not like snow..

Happy new year to everyone.....

Now back to my post.

Quote from Skyacht:

"I use my common sense to establish that the passenger is not a drooling half wit. "

That is about all there is to letting someone handle the controls, however if the passenger is a drooling half wit he / she would be a candidate for employment in the rule making section of Government and maybe if we let them play with the controls they would be so happy they would not want to regulate such entertainment out of existance????

Just a thought.....

Now to get serious, I was fortunate enough to have lived in the era when pilots and engineers explored and opened the far north here in Canada and Alaska. We did so by using every possible means available to us to get the job done.

When mechanical problems arose we fixed things as best we could to get us back into civilization. We had zero weather imformation available to us in many cases, we also had to fly in areas where the maps were marked " not charted"

In the later years of my time in the far north we salvaged wrecked aircraft by repairing them with whatever we could construct in the field. In 1971 we salvaged a DC3 that had landed short the season before and tore the left engine and the left landing gear out of the wing mounts... There was other damage also, two of us were dropped off at the accident site by a Twin Otter in early Oct. with everything we needed to repair it.

Fortunately there was a oil exploration camp nearby and we could stay there to sleep....the sun went down for the winter about a week after we arrived.......we built a snow house and used tarps to repair the engine including several cylinder changes and a new nose case and assemble the new prop we had brought with us...

Anyhow after fifty nine days we flew the the DC3 to Resolute Bay and all the repairs we had done worked, the left landing gear we had repaired by welding pipes and bolting into the rear spar for strength stayed firmly in place for both the take off and the landing ( no brakes or hydraulic pressure and no tail wheel lock. ) The most worrying repair we had made was we were short one cylinder that had a hole on the rocker cover, so we repaired it with plactic steel using styrofoam pieces from cups to follow the shape of the rocker cover. It broke three times during run ups...then on the fourth repair..eureka ..it held and continued to hold for the 110 nautical mile flight to Resolute Bay at thirty below in the dark, but we had a bright moon which allowed me to fly visual as we had no attitude instruments that worked..... We landed just before Christmas day and looked like something out of a horror show due to having frozen our exposed skin working in the bitter cold and wind.

The other guy was Ray Cox one of the best I ever worked with.

As I look back on the era that I managed to live through and survive without ever having had an accident I get just a little annoyed when I see our industry becomming dummed down to a mindless collection of robots meekly accepting the rules and restrictions imposed upon them by drooling half wits who have probably never ever ventured outside an office except to go to a nearby pub for a liquid lunch on their expense account paid for by us the taxpayers.

One more piece of advice from an old timer....to hell with granny, the best idea is to let some young thing handle the controls and thereby enhance your chance of getting lucky later on. :ok:

End of sermon for today.......

Chuck E.