LargeJet, that is precisely why at the beginning of the flight it must be decided who is ultimately the "Captain" for the flight. In the example you quoted, the pilot who wasn't flying at the time was obviously sitting there not bothered about the fact that the handling pilot was flying too low. Therefore I would say he was guilty of the same offence.
If I was designated commander and the other pilot decided to do some low flying I would do what I could to stop it.

It doesn't really matter that the other person is flying it.

Generally it would make sense for the person with the most relevant experience to be allocated as commander for the trip.

So if you are a newly qualified Instrument pilot and you are doing one of your first flights in true IFR and you take with you another pilot who has the same basic qualifications as you but has loads of recent bad weather experience, it would make sense for that person to be allocated commander.

The key here is - sort it out on the ground.

Grandad flier,

I agree fully with you that there should be a designated commander before flight. - I think we both agree on that.
Also you make 2 good points;
1)In the example I quoted, the pilot not flying is no longer a pilot in this enviroment and is only a passenger since the a/c is a single pilot a/c.
I agree that morally you should stop the other guy commiting the offence but legally you have no say in the matter.
The other point of discussion is that of changing commander in flight. I don't know for sure whether you can or cannot do it, the purpose of my example was to highlight the difficulty which may arise with one signature for the tech log and a hand over of command whilst airbourne.

What I have always done is operated as Commander for one leg, signing the tech log for MY acceptance of the a/c and then the other guy signs HIS acceptance of the tech log for the other leg. There is then no ambiguity about who is in command and legally responsible.

Think you are right that you should take someone with you with more experience if you are flying in IFR on the first couple of trips but as for who can log what and who is ultimately in command that is very tricky due to the single pilot nature of light a/c.

Pulse1,
My example may not have been a deliberate act but could have been done purely by accident and could have arisen by
any sort of lapse.

Your example of PPL and PPL/IR pilots flying together is a tricky one and would depend on the validity of the tech log signature and whether you can transfer command in flight.

Flying with people who have different experience and qualifications is always difficult and that of pressonitis. The more experienced pilot should recognise this and make allowances. In the bad whx, 2 pilots scenario surely the PPL/IR pilot should take account of this and be content with the decision taken by the commander at that time?

I seem to be going on a bit here!! By all means use those with more experience to help you make a sound reasoned judgement (even in airline operations the co-pilot may have more experience (hours) than the captain), but ultimately it should be your decision as commander.
Finally, I wholeheartedly agree that a decision on who should be commander should be made on the ground before flight to resolve any ambiguity and make flying what it should be FUN!!!!

Responding to pulse1's invitation a few posts further up, here's some preliminary reckless lawyering. Oops, the online lookitup system my Chambers shelled out bazillions to install last year is fubar as usual this morning so I can't get hold of the ANO etc. Will check later and have a go.

Meanwhile, I should say that the suggestion that having to disclose the ID of the operating pilot or driver in an aero-naughtiness or ground-speeding situation is an infringement of one's human rights (article 8: privacy or Article 6: self incrim) is, to use the technical latin term, a pile of Fido's freshies.

This notion derives from some mad Circuit Judge who knows less than Jack !!!!! about the Hoomin Rights Act getting spoofed by some cheeky chancer, who seems not to have pointed out to Judge Bonkers QC that protected rights can be overriden where necessary in the interests of public safety and prevention of crime. The idea that the owner of a light aircraft which has just wired the runway at LHR with both pilots mooning the Control Tower as they passed is able to say "Not telling who it was" when the CAA comes around to give them all a good kicking seems to me to be pretty daft.

Must go know, there seems to be a nice man at the door with a summons....

[This message has been edited by FNG (edited 03 November 2000).]

The difficulty seems mainly to arise because up until now no-one has thought through how to best use the skills of both pilots if they are flying in a "single-pilot" aircraft. I understand the PPLIR Network has a working group studying this subject at present. After all, it is fairly common to have two pilots in a "single-pilot" light aircraft. I always find that sharing the workload when flying with another pilot makes sense PROVIDING we have agreed in advance who does what.

Lots' of good stuff on this thread..!
Don't know about UK/Euro regs, but in the US generally the pilot with the most ratings get the longest interview!
For example, an instructor, even if flying as a passenger and asleep in the back seat, would probably lose his/her licence if something happened.
Seniority, in terms of hours, ratings, etc., can be a double-edged sword in this respect.

More lawyer blurb in response to pulse1.

In the scenario raised above (2 pilots in low flying aircraft), then , assuming that the low flying is not carried out in order to avoid “immediate danger” (in which case the departure from the Rules of the Air is permitted), both pilots are in trouble.

ANO 74(2) provides that it is an offence to contravene, or permit the contravention of, or to fail to comply with the Rules of the Air.

One of the Rules of the Air is Rule 5: the low flying rule, which is expressed in terms of “an aircraft shall not fly” etc.

ANO 111(1) provides: “If any provision of this Order, of any regulations made thereunder or of JAR145 is contravened in relation to an aircraft, the operator of that aircraft and the commander thereof shall (without prejudice to the liability of any other person for that contravention) be deemed for the purposes of the following provisions of this article to have contravened that provision unless he proves that the contravention occurred without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the contravention”.

If the commander says “I told the flash g!t not too fly so low but he ignored me”, he will probably be met with the answer: “What about ANO 59? You should have ordered flash g!t to give you control and climbed to a lawful height” ANO 59 says:-

Authority of commander of aircraft
59. Every person in an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom shall obey all lawful commands which the commander of that aircraft may give for the purpose of securing the safety of the aircraft and of persons or property carried therein, or the safety, efficiency or regularity of air navigation

(BTW I always take pleasure in reminding my wife and other pax of this, making sure to tell them that I can order them to walk the plank for the slightest insubordination, and I point out to my wife that, for safety reasons, I should be deemed to be wearing my aircraft commander hat at any time when there are headsets in the boot of the car, as we might be about to go flying).

If, however, the Commander could persuade the Beaks that flash g!t refused to obey orders, he might get off. The handling pilot would be sentenced to death or to copy out JAR-FCL by hand (whichever was preferable)

On the swapping of commanders in flight, a lot of the stuff in the ANO and Rules of the Air refers to “the Commander this and the commander that”. For example, the Commander of the a/c must check the wx before beginning the flight. So what happens if ID of Commander changes and the new boss hasn’t briefed on weather?

Wonder what m’learned friends lawyerboy and flying lawyer think of this?

Incidentally, to cross-thread for a moment to the truly excellent spinning thread on the instructor’s forum, it seems that ordering the pax to walk the plank may be the approved technique for spin recovery in certain a/c, especially Bulldogs and Vampires. Must NB this as I recently got checked out on the Doggie and am saving my pennies to buy that clapped out Vampire that’s for sale in Wales.

Any newcomers got any comment to make on this subject?

Having started this thread I have just read the whole thing again and am very impressed by the level of discussion and answers. It is clear that there is a lot of uncertainty about the legal status of two pilots flying together.

Looking at the thread in "Rumours and News" about yet another CAA prosecution failing, I notice that the TWO pilots were prosecuted for low flying so that would seem to clarify the position in the event of rules being broken. If the prosecution had succeeded, it would have been interesting to see if Tudor Owen would have got the non-handling pilot off. Fortunately for the two pilots, we will never know.

I started this thread for two reasons.

1. To try to clarify the legal situation with respect to logbook entry - it has helped me to work out my own position on this,I will transfer command, after discussion, if that is the safe and expedient thing to do.

2. To give the subject an airing as it was mentioned at a recent CAA Safety evening as a major contributor to GA accidents - it has certainly done that and helped me to be lot clearer in pre-flight briefing.

However, further discussion will be very welcome.



------------------
"If you keep doing what you've always done, you will keep getting what you've always got"

See R & N "Pilot cleared of crash blame" for possible answer to question about one pilot being cleared. Sorry I can't remember how to do links.

------------------
"If you keep doing what you've always done, you will keep getting what you've always got"

From my uni course (B.Av) and club trip experience over the last couple of years the essential parts of CRM seem to be:

Sort it out on the ground before you even walk out to the plane - who is preflighting, filling up, looking after the fuel card, radios etc. Airlines have SOPs, we have conversations

Stick to the setup unless something really bad happens, and if the PF (PIC) isn't comfortable, the PNF should support their decision and make the resulting actions easier, not try and change the decision because it's not theirs to change

Sort it out on the ground first (has this been mentioned before?)

And most importantly, any flight with two pilots in the intercom system is a two pilot operation, you just have to sort out who gets to contribute how much of what (taking control in EFATO for example) on the ground first (not to labour the point or anything... ;) )

Another fine thread

Safe flying



------------------
Confident, cocky, lazy, dead.

Pulse 1

The two PPLs in the Plymouth case were in two a/c, one following the other.

The link you wanted to the Pilot cleared of crash blame is: <A HREF="http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/011430.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/011430.html</A>