Passengers handling the controls
 

I'm not talking about airliners here, I'm talking about GA.

Does anybody know (for UK / JAA) what the precise rules (if any) are concerning passengers handling the controls in a light aircraft (flying with a non-instructor), and where to find them?

I think I know what the rules are at present, but struggle to prove my point !

Thanks,

G

may not be legal who on earth would approve such a thing:(

Purr: very constructive response there: if you don't know anything about the subject then don't respond - it is in fact perfectly legal.

Ghengis, I believe BEagle posted a reference to the exact wording a while back, but if you cannot find it on search, he would be the man to ask.

If Lucifer is correct, then I'll wait for BEagle to post and prove me wrong. But when I've tried to find something similar myself, I've always come up with a complete blank. And I've taken the fact that nothing tells me that it's illegal to mean that it's legal.

(Purr - it is very common for pilots to hand the controls to their passengers, if the passengers are interested. My own rules for doing so are that I want to see the passenger comfortable with the sensations associated with flying, I want to be away from controlled and busy airspace, I want to be a safe distance from the ground, cloud, and anything that could even broadly be described as "weather", and I want to be totally confident about my current position. Only then will I say "do you fancy having a go?" And I never mention this to a passenger beforehand - there are so many reasons that it might not happen that if I mention it before the flight the passenger may well be disappointed if I decide not to let it happen.)

FFF
--------------

I'm afraid that strictly speaking an non-FI CANNOT let someone else have a go on the controls.

It's in here somewhere but I haven't got time to trawl through for the exact bit at the moment.

It's counted as an instructional flight if a non licenced person uses the controls, if you haven't got an FI rating then you cannot instruct.

I agree with FFF. I've never seen anything in the ANO that would prohibit a non-crewmember handling the controls under the supervision of a crewmember.

Maybe when SAS has a little more time he'll be able to find the words in the 74 page document quoted that will enlighten us...

2 (a) He shall not fly such an aeroplane for the
purpose of public transport or aerial work
save as hereinafter provided:
(aa) the giving of instruction in flying, if
his licence includes a flying
instructor's rating, class rating
instructor rating, flight instructor
rating or an assistant flying
instructor's rating;

That isn't the best example, but I can't find the phrase I'm lookng for. This all came up in a thread in the Private flying section a while ago.

The definition of instruction is having an unqualified pilot using the controls under the supervision of a qualified pilot. If you don't have an FI rating, then you can't teach.

I'll try and have a look for it, but it is unrelated to the licence that is held by the pilot, as it is not instruction. Rather what we should be looking for is the passenger in the other seat handling the controls under supervision.

I have had a look through the LASORS, but cannot find what I am looking for.

I'll e-mail the Belgrano about this, it may take a while for an answer, but as it isn't clear in LASORS a bit of clarification would be nice. I'm pretty certain I'm correct in this, but nothing like hearing it from the horses mouth.

Genghis, with all your CAA contacts could you get an answer any quicker than the rest of us?

SAS,

The part that you quoted is not at all relevant, I'm afraid. The section in question relates to the privileges of a PPL(A). Paragraph 1 gives a PPL(A) holder the right to fly an aircraft for which he holds the appropriate type- or class-rating. Paragraph 2, the one which you've quoted, then states that this right does not apply to Public Transport or Aerial Work (other than instructing, which counts as aerial work for the purpose of some rules, but not for this one).

If I let my passenger take the controls, this is not a public transport flight. It is also not an aerial flight. (As you rightly point out, it can't be an instructional flight if I don't hold an instructor rating.) Therefore, the flight is not disallowed by this rule.

FFF
---------------

FFF, you are correct and I'm getting a bit peeved that I can't find the relevant law on this.

I've emailed the CAA and hopefully should get a clarification by 2006. Until then I'll have another look and see what I can find, if anything!

The structure of the flight crew licensing law in the ANO looks like this:

Art 20 requires an aircraft to have a flight crew numbering at least the minimum required by its C of A.

Art 21(1) requires the members of the flight crew to be licensed, except in certain circumstances decribed in (2).

Art 22 gives the CAA the power to issue (and renew etc.) UK/JAA licences in accordance with Schedule 8 which set out the privileges.

None of it refers to who may operate the controls. If you were to take the interpretation that operating the controls would make you a member of the flight crew, then you could only do so with an appropriate licence. But Art 130 defines flight crew as:

which lends this interpretation little support.

Art 41(1) may also be relevant, as it requires one pilot to remain "at the controls" throughout the flight. However 41(3) clearly implies that a PNF is considered to be "at the controls".

Wrong bit of the CAA I'm afraid, all my contacts are on the certification and FT side - on operational and training matters it takes me as long to get an answer as anybody else.

Also sometimes it's best not to ask a question too directly of CAA, because if you get the wrong answer it can be very difficult to get them to change their minds.

G

The answer I supplied related to a non-PPL holder who had asked how he could log flight time during which he'd handled the controls with a PPL holding non-FI in the other seat. My answer was "As a passenger". My private thoughts were "and probably as an illegal one at that!"..........

I don't understand the problem.

If my Grandmother is sitting in the other seat of a light airplane and wants to feel what the controls do, what is the problem?

And who is going to give a damn if she does?

Sometimes the discussions seem to get rather strange here. :confused:

Chuck, Its the stuffy Bitish respect for rules and regulations, you have seen how we like to stand in queues!

You know how a PPL could not possibly let mum or dad have a go at straight and level becuase he is incapable of seing if a mistake is going to be made unless he has:

a) done the ATPL exams
B) the FI rating
c) sat in the right seat of a 152 for 3000hrs while waiting for the jet job

and of course don't forget being a "frozen" airline pilot!

The brits do like to collect "badges"!!!!

I'm with Chuck and FFF on this - the pilot has all the responsibility for the flight, if anything goes wrong the blame falls squarely on his/her shoulders.

I had my first go when I was a kid and those early memories are still with me today.

Only today I was flying with a friend in the Cub, he was having great fun poling us around for a while. It certainly puts nervous pax minds at rest when they realize that the darned thing is stable and not about to drop out the air.

Another favorite of mine is to get her trimmed up nicely, fly hands and feet off, then either climb or descend by both of you either leaning forward or back in the seats...:D

Kingy

Whereas, on Vancouver Island not that many months ago ...

"Of course we aren't breaching any low flying rules, we're going to land ... somewhere, eventually."

"Two thousand feet? What's that? We'd get nosebleed if we ever went that high."

"There aren't any rules here, we just do what we like."

"Oh, on a day like this we only fly routes we know, we wouldn't go anywhere we didn't know the way to." [Viz being a few hundred metres, if that, in some directions only, through the thinner patches in the fog. They were flying, too, I saw them, but refused to go with them.]

and so on and so on and so on.

Actually they do have one rule there - when flying through a narrow gap between two mountains I asked whether there was any convention as to which side of the valley one flew on (being used to East Anglia), and it turned out there was.

Sigh. Much more fun than round here.

Article 20 requires the aircraft not to fly unless it has the required crew on board.

Article 41 requires one pilot to remain at the controls at all times.

Article 29 prohibits the giving of instruction in flying by someone without the correct ratings but then says:-
"(2) This article applies to instruction in flying given to any person flying or about to fly a
flying machine or glider for the purpose of becoming qualified for:
(a) the grant of a pilot’s licence; and
(b) the inclusion or variation of any rating in his licence."

Therefore it appears you can teach your granny to fly so long as that instruction is not for one of the purposes above, you remain at the controls, and you are qualified to fly the thing.

Simple really:ok:

Mike

Chuck, I'll definately agree about it not being a problem letting someone have a go whilst you are in flight, but I have benn asked the question on a number of occasions and I'm struggling to find in our myriad of over complex rules whether it is actually allowed or not.

It looks like Mike has answered it, but I'm still not totally convinced about it being within the 'rules' as such. Mind you it's a pretty unenforceable one if it is disallowed!!

Many years ago in the 1960's when I was flying in the bush in Northern Ontario I used to take my two kids with me in the Beaver on floats when it was a cargo trip.

Both learned to fly the Beaver when they were still so small I had to sit them on cushions, all I had to do was follow with the rudder, when they got bigger they could fly the Beech 18 on floats before they were old enough to start to learn to drive.

If any self serving moron from the Government ever had the nerve to quote the regulations to me about letting someone fly when I was with them I would shove their regulations where they would need an anal scanner to read it.

There that settles that subject. :ok:

Chuck E.

I agree with you, Chuck. And with Mike Cross.

I too had my first 'go' at the age of 11 in a Piper Carribean; the only point I had was that the person having their 'go' in this way can't log the time as anything other than 'passenger'.

Love the thought of a proctologist having to remove the Air Navigation Order from the head Belgranist's rectum.......:ugh:

If letting someone handle the controls counted as instruction, so, logically, would:

Explaining how the aircraft worked, while you're in flight.

Talking through a take-off, landing etc.

Suggesting an airsick passenger put their hands lightly on the stick/yoke, look out the front, and imagine they're flying (while you still fly it of course).

There may or may not be a rule, but maybe a little common sense is required here? :confused:

This just may be in the old category of "it's fine to do it, but if there is an incident later on that flight, e.g. in the landing, in which a passenger gets hurt, and the passenger "discovers" that he can get some (or more) compensation if the flight was illegal, then he may just say something which assists his case"

Another example is where the PPL cost sharing formula is exceeded. In practice it goes on frequently and it is all but impossible to get caught - unless somebody talks. And you can be sure that a passenger will talk if there is an accident (not related to the actual/promised payment of course).

Never forget that most people, even those you consider your closest friends or relatives, will say things that will assist them if they have been injured, even if doing so drops you in the ***t. Even if the "injury" is purely financial but is substantial enough. The mere threat of a financial penalty is enough to "swing" most people.

So, personally, I play things very straight :O

I agree with Mike C's interpretation though; it seems to take care of itself because it is obvious that when up in the air you can teach someone to fly; it won't be of much use to them though because they can't log it. I suppose you could take somebody through the whole PPL/IR stuff and then send off to Florida to legalise it by flying the 45+35 hours at the lowest possible cost.

I wonder if somebody else can do the radio though... they would need to get the CAA radio license surely, which means passing the RT test? This IS potentially important because if you get a non-flyer to do the radio, your whole airfield will hear it and if somebody has a score to settle (pretty common among flying schools in certain locations :yuk: ) they might do so...

I really think we ought to be a bit cautious about subjects like this.

The traction engine movement is presently contemplating the possibility that engines might have to be fenced off from the public at rallies after well meaning club officials opened a 'dialogue' with the HSE.

When questions were asked about the use of 123.45 on the Internet, a Notam prohibiting it quickly appeared.

Why not let sleeping dogs lie?

If I'm flying with a student, then they are 'under' my RT licence, same for a solo student. Once you are no longer a 'student' you need your own licence. As a non-FI cannot 'instruct' then strictly speaking they cannot have somebody 'under' their RT licence.

It would be very hard to prove who spoke on the radio however unless it is recorded.

Given the standard of most RT it doesn't seem to matter if you have the certificate or not, it's invariably awful!! "G errr ABCD err umm inside leg measurement etc...........":mad:

David, I can't agree with your comments. If we didn't question how and why we do certain things, then flying will remain static. How on earth could the CAA or whoever tell who handled the controls at a certain point?
Traction engines are big, noisy, dangerous things and I am in no way surprised that they may have to be fenced off. With all the whirling cogs, pistons and other small curious children mashers I'm amazed it hasn't been done already. If the Steam people had taken the lead in this sort of thing, maybe the HSE wouldn't be so draconian.

The only thing that can beat a beauracracy is to try and pre-empt them and any concerns they may have. If you can prove that you are doing everything possible they'll leave you alone. Look at the PFA for example, they took a 'sport' with a dreadful safety record and changed peoples thinking and took the lead. Look what a great organisation it is now without the Belgrano butting in every ten minutes.
Compare this to the contrasting fortunes of the gyro-copter brigade and you'll see how to do it and how not to.

Good common law instincts from FFF: the general rule still holds true that, in the UK, nothing is illegal unless there's a law saying so. You will comb the ANO and related materials in vain for anything which says that you can't let granny wiggle the stick about. Anyone daft enough to let granny try to land the thing has only themselves to blame if things go horribly wrong with insurance etc.

Slightly off thread, but I was depressed by IO540's suggestion that breaches of the rules about costs sharing are commonplace. If this is true and there really are lots of PPLs mean and stupid enough to charge people for flying, I will sign up my granny (unlicensed but enthusiastic wannabe kamikaze pilot) to be their next passenger: "here sonny, I'll take over while you count all those fivers I just gave you"

On the subject of use of the radio by an unlicensed person I refer m'learned friends to Article 21(2) of the ANO which permits a person to act as a Flight Radiotelephony Operator without holding a licence in certain circumstances.

WRT teaching your granny to fly, Article 64 looks like a good one to get you on if you let her do something stupid.:}

Mike

David

The problem is that from time to time well-meaning people do ask the CAA for a ruling on something. Sometimes the CAA responds but if it is anything controversial it tends to stay silent. If they were more forthcoming, a lot of this speculation would not be necessary. Was 123.45 ever authorised for air-air? It is allocated to some ground units.

But no matter what, some subjects will always be debated because the legislation is a mess.

FNG

"Commonplace" as a % of total flights no, but it happens occassionally in certain circumstances where people ask a PPL to take them somewhere, most likely to an overseas destination.

Mike Cross

Do you mean 21 (2) (a) (ii) (aa)...(ee) ? That appears to say that a PPL can authorise a passenger to do the radio. However (aa) through to (ee) are ALL required but under (bb) the radio operator would be OK if assisting with "safety or navigation".

That's not strictly true.

Art 46 (1) The radio station in an aircraft shall not be operated ... by a person duly licensed or otherwise permitted to operate the radio station under that law.

which is why Art 21(2)(a) quoted by Mike Cross is required.

There is no similar prohibition on operating the flight controls. However, 21(2)(c) allows a student undergoing dual instruction to act as pilot. Without it, the student would not be allowed to log the time.

What about using a bottle to pee in and then using your knees to manipulate the controls? Is that legal? Should I get a CAA waiver the next time I need to do it?

QDM

Well that one adds a layer of meaning to the term "handling pilot".

Smutty asides aside, the answer probably depends on how many hours your knees have logged on type. I assume that as a doctor you can medically certify your knees as fit for flight duties.


-------------

PS: IO540, you said "frequent", not commonplace, apologies, but even if frequent that's still a cause for gloom about the venal naughtiness of those who thus disgrace the noble and selfless traditions of the yuk-brown folder

On the subject of well-meaning officials asking the authorities for clarification:

The Scouts used to use volunteer PPLs/club machines for flying days, on a cost-sharing basis. Then it ocurred to someone that the pilots' activities just might be construed as 'hire or reward' flights. The Scout movement asked the CAA. The CAA could only agree that such flying might well be regarded as such a thing. One senior CAA man told me that protection of CPLs flying people for money was a factor that could not be neglected.

End of PPLs flying Scouts.

Even before that, the chap organising the whole thing in the South-East told me that my Permit Cub 'might not be seen to be as safe as a C of A machine'. No Scouts ever got to fly in this genuine warplane - and I might add that my personal score of C of A engine/engine instrument failures leading to forced landings is two, v none in several hundred hours of Permit Cub aviation.

Why are you Brits so paranoid about the rules and regulations?

Here in Canada we now are blessed with " NEW " regulations called CAR's, they are so badly written no one can interpet them so maybe you guys could send your regulators over here for a copy? To many weirdly worded regulations leads to confusion and mass non compliance...so just use common sense that works every time.

Now if you want to enforce something try looking at your illegal immigration problem.

When I step off an airplane in London I think I've landed in the wrong country.


There that should start another argument. :D

Chuck

Are you trained & endorsed on using the bottle? If it's something you need to use in flight that would make it 'aircraft equipment'. Has it been through a CAA certification & approval process?

So Bookworm, you add the two together and getUnfortunately Phillip shows, if you are construed as being outside of the rules, then they'll have you if you get found out. It would all be easy if the rules were written so as to have no hidden meaning so that we would all be clear about what we can and shouldn't do, but that would make sense and we can't have any of that!

I think all I was trying to say is that what matters is the insurance company view if there was an incident. Unless you do something truly dreadful, the worst the CAA can do is a fine. An insurance company can do something far worse, and they do it routinely (not paying out on a 3rd party claim is enough to ruin anybody's day).

So perhaps it's better to discreetly put a question to one's insurance broker, not to the CAA who most of the time don't reply at all.

Sadly, people sue very readily today. The school my kids go to is considering banning videos of certain events. It's quite ridiculous but it's the age we live in. It would be unwise to fly boy scouts for anything resembling a reward today - isn't there a rule for PPL cost sharing that the flight must not be advertised outside the club notice board?

Incidentally, I don't think a CPL is enough; you now need an AOC also. I was discussing this very topic with someone who knows the rules the other day; a CPL alone is actually pretty useless.

I think somebody's accusing me of not being qualified to take the p*ss... :)

So I am confused after reading all the above in depth.

Am I allowed to let my passenger to take the controls or not?

;)

Can't see the problem really maybe its all those trees in front of the wood.

Not being paid as an instructor, not giving instruction,

under PIC it says me.....

I have asked people to hold the controls while I looked at a map or drew a line or two, let people feel how the controls work never let them do anything over a 10 degree banked turn.

nuff said....


Would be interested in the official position from the CAA though :D

I think we've fairly conclusively proved that nobody really knows!!

Everyone has an opinion, but an official position may be very different.

Still can't see how they would ever find out if you did let someone have a go surreptitiously.