Two Pilots Dangerous
 

According to the CAA SRG, one contributor to CFIT fatalities is the tendency for two pilots to press on into deteriorating conditions when either one of them, on his/her own, would have diverted or turned back. This raises many possible questions which might provoke some discussion here about how to avoid this but I have a particular one:

A PPL is handling pilot with a PPL/IR passenger on a flight from A to B in good weather which is forecast to continue to B. The actual weather deteriorates halfway to B and it is decided that PPL/IR becomes handling pilot and they continue under IFR. Weather improves before B and PPL then resumes control. How do PPL and PPL/IR record this flight in their respective logbooks?

I have said to many, many, pilots who are/were about to embark on the rocky road known as "hour building" that if, as so many do, they fly with another pilot to "help share the costs" then the BIG question is not neccessarily 'who is the handling pilot' - but "Who is Pilot In Command".

ONE person must be designated as PIC (at any given portion of the flight) - and he/she must be able to a) assume all the responsibilities of the commander and, b) carry the can for the error if something goes wrong.

I can think of no more confusing an issue than two pilots arguing (in court?) about who permitted the aircraft to enter controlled airspace, who broke rule 5, who didn't do enough carburettor heat applications in the cruise, who was actually handling the aircraft during the forced landing when one pilot chose one field and the other pilot wanted somewhere else.

If you are flying towards the string of lights that are bearly visible in the haze - who decides if it is runway lighting or street lighting (aasuming the m3 still does not have a localiser).

It doesn't answer the question above...but the main question should be "Who is the pilot in command?"

------------------
Hunting is bad!!
Support the right to arm Bears!!

Too right Bear Cub.

Two pilots fighting over the controls is quite a scare.

Cheers

Agree entirely Bear Cub.

I am doing a lot of this at the moment (although I find I do prefer to fly alone!)

When I fly with another pilot, one of us is PIC the way there, the other is PIC on the way back. This covers everything, including plight planning, navigating, working the radio etc.

Ambiguity in this regard is surely a recipe for disaster.

(I haven`t answered the original question either - sorry!)

Re the original question, I am not sure, without checking, if the identity of the a/c captain can change during the flight of a single crew a/c (but I suppose it can if the Captain eats the dodgy fish and Doug McClure has to step forward from the back row and grapple with his 'Nam flashbacks, whilst George Kennedy yells encouragement at him from the fogged in tower below).

Back in the real world, if the identity of the Capt can change mid-flight, then PPL is the PIC for his bits, and logs that. PPL IR logs the instrument bit. What I am pretty sure about is that both can't log P1 for the same period. I belkieve that neither can log P2 because the a/c is single crew and the "co-pilot" is not exercising his licence privs as a necessary part of the crew.

If the Capt CAN'T change, then, assuming that the aircraft is a single-crew type, isn't the answer that the PPL logs the whole flight as P1, but does NOT log any instrument time. The PPL IR logs nothing at all. In this cases, isn't the IFR bit of the flight a bit, er, naughty?

I will go and look it up later, but, for chapter and verse, why not try posting the q on the Charlie Alpha forum and you'll probably receive a definitive answer from Irv Lee or one of the other regular instructor-contributors there.

Of course the Captain of a flight can change at any time in the flight, doesn't matter if they don't change seats.
In any flying there should always be a nominated PIC either for the whole flight (perhaps the more experienced) or for each sector.
What is logged is a different matter and depends on who was handling pilot and for how long.
At the end of a single flight, the PPL might log 20 mins whilst the PPL/IR who took over the controls during the flight in IMC logs 40 mins.
What I mean by "nominated PIC" is that someone should always be in charge of the aircraft - for example if something goes wrong, who is going to be responsible.
I have flown in an aircraft with an instructor who wanted to fly across some airspace that I was not happy with. It was my flight but I told him that I was not happy (I was unfamiliar enough with the area not to want to go through it) but he was insistent he knew the route through this busy airspace. I told him that if he wanted to fly the next part as PIC then I would accept his judgement. He did. We went through some very busy airspace around a major international airport. With the wrong route through. He was the one who had to answer to the authorities.
This is just one example of why you should always decide who is overall PIC.

Back to the original thread, I understand the bit where it stated that 2 pilots would probabaly press on (dangerously) whereas either pilot on his own would turn back.

I am just as guilty...I have been planning on going somewhere Sun/Monday and know that the weather looks a bit iffy. I have been thinking that I will probably go if one of the other pilots in our group is up for it and we'll share the workload.

What I now suppose I was thinking was that I'll team up with another pilot and share the decision making... not good.

We must guard against this, just like pressing on into bad weather when you have another pilot with you, it's not about bravado but a deep down need to share the responsibility I suppose.

Thanks to everyone for contributions so far and special thanks to Grandad for answering my specific question. I would be interested to know what you put in the From/To section of your logbook when you have changed PIC.
Like Beagler I fly with a group and, being the least experienced and generally cautious pilot, I am conscious of flying into conditions (legal) which I would not do if I was solo. This could include a stronger crosswing than I have experienced so far. Knowing that I can formally transfer command without losing all of the precious time in the logbook will help me to be a safer pilot. The positive side of flying with more experienced, and qualified pilots, gives me useful experience which makes me a safer pilot when I am on my own.

One of the problems of less experienced pilots flying with more experienced passengers is that we tend to defer to their judgement. The only time I have been involved in damaging an aircraft was when I, as a RAF gliding instructor, was flying with the CFI for what is called a hangar landing i.e trying to end up as close to the hangar doors as possible. I deferred to his judgement on final turn and "we" broke the skid trying successfully to avoid going through the hedge.

I have also seen two experienced gliding instructors die together when they experienced a launch cable break which they had spent many years teaching students to cope with.

The scenario I raised initially describes a situation which develops slowly, there are many other situations which need instant action e.g. wind gradient on final approach, where a more experienced pilot may take control, and pilots like me might easily defer to them.

Airline pilots go on CRM courses and we don't, but CRM comes in everytime there is more than one pilot in one of our puddle jumpers. I had a similar experience to Pulse1's, which illustrated the "cross cockpit heirarchy" issue in CRM. Approaching to land in a twitchy taildragger (only my second flight in that type), the hugely experienced and capable guy sitting behind me lost concentration (he had actually started to fall asleep) as we came into the flare. As we went sideways, a voice in my head told me that I should yell at him to go around, but I didn't. In the end, the only damage was to his pride. Debriefing the incident later over a beer, my friend identified this as a classic instance of cross cockpit heirarchy adversely affecting flight safety. I should have spoken up, but was deterred by a combination of knowledge of his zillions of hours and respect for his (usually) brilliant flying.
The curse of Prune was almost upon us, as it was ten years to the day since he had bent a similar aeroplane in similar circustances. So, my friend was awarded a Bar to his MHDOID and we both learned something.

Interesting point, FNG. Speaking up is not always a guarantee that the other pilot will listen!

I was P1 on a non-training cross-water flight with a highly experienced CFI when the weather turned ugly. I elected to return to our departure AD but the CFI, somewhat aggressively, insisted that we continue and effectively assumed control of the flight. We ended up scratching around the oggin at 500’ in 3km visibility and out of radio and nav-aid coverage. The remainder of the flight took place in tense silence, with the CFI refusing to listen to my concerns (which were expressed in a non-confrontational manner). He felt his actions were justified by our eventual safe arrival at the destination AD.

Since then I always address the command issue in the pre-flight briefing,whether I’m flying with an ATPL or SPL. Whilst I welcome advice from any pilot with whom I fly, I insist that I’m the one who makes the decisions—as P1 the safety of the flight is, after all, MY responsibility.

I’d be interested to hear the views of anyone with CRM training on how to deal with this type of situation.

Well, I've always thought that when you fly with someone else two heads are better than one. Whenever I've done so, if we haven't been sure what to do, especially in the case of something like deteriorating weather, we've made a joint decision. If someone with me wanted to turn back then I would, even if I felt it wasn't necessary, as I could be wrong. It's always been the same the other way round too. When I did the Dawn to Dusk earlier this year, both of us specifically agreed before we started that if either one of us wasn't happy with something, then we wouldn't do it. IMHO if you reach the point where someone NEEDS to pull rank and insist they're PIC, then things are going very wrong.

------------------
To fly is human, to hover, divine.

Whirlybird, I agree entirely. That’s the way I normally do things. In the case I just outlined, however, the person in question didn’t need to pull rank—he did so just because he was desperate to get home! Won’t be rushing out to play with him again...

Grandad flyer, sorry, but I would have said the CAPTAIN and the PIC are the same thing- what CAN change is the HANDLING pilot, the way to log it then is for the handling pilot (non PIC) to log it as P1u/s with a countersignature from the Captain/PIC.
(put a note in the remarks column to show why)

Horsepower,

Just re-read your first post. I wasn't really responding to that specifically, though it did sound like it. I just wasn't very happy with what appeared to be general agreement that you HAD to have someone in charge in case two pilots disagreed. But in a situation like you describe it's very difficult. It hasn't happened to me. Makes me realise we should all be very careful who we fly with. And some people, however good they are at manipulating flying controls, should not be allowed to hold pilots licenses. They really should test people's attitudes at the GFT, above all else. But I'm not sure how.

------------------
To fly is human, to hover, divine.

Some thoughts from what it says in the ANO.

‘Pilot in command’ in relation to an aircraft means a person who for the time being is in charge of the piloting of the aircraft without being under the direction of any other pilot in the aircraft;

‘Commander’ in relation to an aircraft means the member of the flight crew designated
as commander of that aircraft by the operator thereof, or, failing such a person, the person who is for the time being the pilot in command of the aircraft;

Also Art 41:
41—(1)(a) The commander of a flying machine or glider registered in the United
Kingdom shall cause one pilot to remain at the controls at all times while it is in flight.

Taken together, those suggest to me that it is possible for two people to share the duties of pilot-in-command during a particular flight.

However, it makes most sense to appoint a 'commander' unambiguously at the start of the flight -- I'd certainly want to do so if I were the operator to avoid any misunderstandings about who had the responisbility for bringing my aeroplane back in one piece! As a matter of principle I always make a point of agreeing who is commander before a flight.

Even in heavy crew enviroment on B747 there is still only one overall commander, the other Capt is designated as P1 for the duration that the actual commander takes rest. The commander has signed the tech log for the a/c and is therefore responsible for it. Take this example and apply it to that of any a/c with 2 crew. Only one of them signs acceptance for the a/c and is therefore responsible. I would suggest that any change of command for our legal friends would have to result in another signature.

Largejet,

Having just begun to see how I can keep my logbook consistent with being legal and safe you have raised another issue with the Tech Log although this must surely be less of a problem. Signing the Tech Log means you have accepted that the aircraft is in a fit state to carry out the intended flight. We usually sign the log after the flight to indicate any or no defects and that the aircraft has actually flown for the recorded time and been where you say it has.

Surely, in light aircraft you cannot have 2 crew unless one is Instructor and one is Pu/t

Pulse1,

I agree with you. Most light aircraft are certified for single pilot operation and as such can only have one pilot. i.e no co-pilot as in most airline operations. My point about the tech log is simply that the commander of the a/c signs the acceptance of the a/c and therefore remains responsible for the a/c at all times.
On a single pilot certified a/c, if you have 2 pilots on board and one is always responsible you cannot hand over to the other pilot since you would then have 2 pilots in a single pilot a/c.

Take this as an example for legal purposes:
2 pilots flying in a PA-28 break the low flying rule which is reported by someone on the ground. You don't find out for a few days having signed the tech log (whether it be before or after flight). However, at the time the other pilot is flying the a/c since you handed control to him, he then denies being in control. Legally who is responsible and who carries the can?

Largejet,

Thanks for your example which deals with a deliberate, illegal act and it will take a lawyer (any offers?) to determine the basis for deciding who was in command. For all I know it may be similar to recent dismissals in speeding cases where the owner of the vehicle refused to say who was driving. Human right law supported the owner's right to refuse to incriminate himself.

If the Tech Log is the definitive document as you suggest then the legal answer is clear and , whether the infringement is deliberate or not, the signee will be responsible. I know several groups where pilots fly together and one signs the Tech Log and one is captain.
However, if the two pilots have agreed after the flight what to put in their respective log books, before they knew about the illegal act, this should surely be strong evidence as long as entries do not conflict.

However I still believe that the safety issues involving two pilots are more complex and that the legal issues raised by you actually create difficulties which sometimes may compromise safety. I hope I can explain what I mean by developing my original example:

PPL and PPL/IR decide to fly from A to B and back and, with good weather forecast for route and destination, it is agreed that PPL will be in command for the first leg.

Actual weather becomes marginal VMC and there is no doubt that, on his own, PPL would return to A. If they do that, there is no legal or safety problem. However, knowing that PPL/IR will miss his turn they agree to transfer command to PPL/IR and continue the flight - still safe and still legal. At some point during this process they accidentally infringe controlled The CAA decides to prosecute - who?

The big factor here is the pressonitis which is the big killer. The point I am laboriously making is that this factor can be worse when two pilots with different experience or qualifications fly together. Understanding how, and when, to transfer command will make this situation safer and the extracts from the ANO offered by Bookworm,imply that this can legally be done.

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

[This message has been edited by pulse1 (edited 01 November 2000).]

Interesting debate folks.

I regularly fly with a CFI from a local flying club ouside his official capacity. Before taxi, it is always discussed who will be responsible for the flight ie EFATO. If I am the Captain for the trip I deal with the flying and landing (safely hopefully) and he will deal with radios etc if required and vice versa. But each of us know who is doing what. In the air two heads and eyes are better than one and a team discussion (time permitting)can be had for the safe outcome of the trip if necessary. I also fly with a multi flight deck crew where everyone has an imput and the Captain has the final say. If one person doesn't like the conditions (wx for example) then it doesn't happen. CRM. Final decision still rests with the Captain. Pressonitis and bravado are a recipe for disaster.

I always understood that if you were P1 for a portion of the flight you could log that and P2 the rest.