Passenger manipulation of control

[314159265]

I'm studying for my RPL exam and I have had conflicting information regarding the law for unlicensed passengers to manipulate the control in any way during the flight. Although in the VFRG it says that non part 61 compliant personnel shall not touch the controls of the aircraft. However, I've also heard pilots say that if you're the PIC, you are allowed to authorize passengers to fly the aircraft but responsibility lies with the PIC. Could someone confirm this?

 

 

 

[old man emu]

Here is the Gospel according to CASA:

 

1. 
   CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 228
    
   Unauthorised persons not to manipulate controls
    
                (1)  A person commits an offence if:
    
    
    
                        (a)  the person manipulates the controls of a registered aircraft during flight; and
    
    
    
                        (b)  the person is not:
    
    
    
                                 (i)  if the aircraft is a balloon--authorised under Part 5 to fly the balloon or perform an activity essential to the balloon's operation during flight time; or
    
    
    
                                (ii)  for an aircraft other than a balloon--authorised under Part 61 of CASR to pilot the aircraft.
    
   
2. In the case of RAAus registered aircraft, CASA Instrument 59/17 says 
    
   

 

     Authorisation

 

            For paragraph 226 (1) © of CAR, CASA authorises a person, other than a person to whom paragraph 226 (1) (a) or (b) applies, to occupy a control seat of a recreational dual control aircraft.

 

     Direction

 

            For regulation 11.245 of CASR*, CASA directs the pilot in command of a recreational dual control aircraft in which a person occupies a control seat pursuant to the authorisation in section 3(Authorisation):

 

(a)   to instruct the person on how to avoid interference with the aircraft controls during flight; and

 

(b)   to maintain satisfactory communication at all times between the pilot and the person.

 

So, legally, the PIC cannot permit a passenger who is unlicenced (ie holds no sort of licence or certificate) to manipulate directional, engine or fuel controls of an aircraft, including on the ground.

 

CAVEAT:  If an emergency situation occurred whereby the PIC required the assistance of an unlicenced person, then one would suppose that this prohibition would not apply.

 

In real life - as long as the PIC can "maintain satisfactory communication at all times between the pilot and the person" how are the authorities going to know? 

 

* CASR 11.245 allows CASA to  make and give directions for the safe conduct of aviation

 

 

[facthunter]

Your job is to have the" legal and correct"answer to pass the examination.  Generally the only person who can operate a planes controls  in an operating environment is a suitably qualified  pilot or someone in the process of being trained, by a suitably qualified pilot.. A TIF  Trial Instructional Flight, can be done  "straight off the street", more or less a joy flight with a few extras done by an INSTRUCTOR. not just a qualified pilot on type.That flight time can be "logged" eventually if your training proceeds at any time and place in the future. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Today the news is that a Russian captain had a woman friend in the RH seat, doing gentle turns. It is not clear if this was on a passenger flight. What put the cat among the pigeons is that video was posted of it.

 

In Australia it is not legal to allow a non pilot to control the plane, but who is to know who does what on a light plane with only one passenger. In some cases I would consider an unqualified passenger a safer bet than some of the commercial pilots we have now.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Today the news is that a Russian captain had a woman friend in the RH seat, doing gentle turns. It is not clear if this was on a passenger flight. What put the cat among the pigeons is that video was posted of it.

 

In Australia it is not legal to allow a non pilot to control the plane, but who is to know who does what on a light plane with only one passenger. In some cases I would consider an unqualified passenger a safer bet than some of the commercial pilots we have now.

 

There will always be a few fools.

 

The last time this subject came up someone boasted he had allowed a rusty GA pilot to "practice", and first flight the freshly "trained" pilot made in his new RA aircraft, he tumped it into the ground and wrote it off on the landing.

 

There was another clown proudly "instructing" a very nervous RA owner a few years ago.

 

Neither of these "instructors" had had any training as instructors to be able to correct the erratic things that non pilots can do.

 

I've told the story before of my experience as a kid where the instructor took a Chipmunk up to height, and then said "your aircraft" and I flicked it over and tried to hold a 90 degree turn, next feeling an enormous g pressure and seeing the sky, the ground and the sky; that would be a great experience for a pilot who hsn't had instructor training to recover from.

 

 

[old man emu]

Your job is to have the" legal and correct"answer to pass the examination.

 

End of discussion.

 

 

 

quod erat demonstrandum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Phil Perry]

I am not now, nor have I ever been a deliberate Larrikin,. . .but I admit that I have, on a number of occasions, allowed a front seat passenger to handle the controls of a light aircraft, albeit briefly.

 

'Some' of my instructors, as well as many private pilots at the time have said. . 'Everybody Does that' . . . ( The 'Time' to which I refer was in the early 1970s )

 

I am not defending this practice in any way. . . neither am I going to apologise in retrospect for having done it, like choosing the wrong person for a lifetime partner,. . what has happened cannot be EASILY changed some decades later .

 

 

[old man emu]

Of course we have all done it. Like we let our kids back the car out of the driveway. I have n ancient memory of my grandfather having me on his lap while driving his car.

 

I wonder what the separation is between, say a person, with no more knowledge of how to fly than that gained on a flight sim, jumping into a plane alone and trying to fly it, and allowing the person you are taking for their first flight in a light aircraft have a feel of the controls while you keep an eye on what they are doing?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Of course we have all done it. Like we let our kids back the car out of the driveway. I have n ancient memory of my grandfather having me on his lap while driving his car.

 

I wonder what the separation is between, say a person, with no more knowledge of how to fly than that gained on a flight sim, jumping into a plane alone and trying to fly it, and allowing the person you are taking for their first flight in a light aircraft have a feel of the controls while you keep an eye on what they are doing?

 

There you go into that tempting path, but you would have zapped people who said "I know I shouldn't drink but I'm OK with a few."

 

 If you have not been trained as an instructor how are you going to know what you don't know?

 

How do you know the person isn't going to freeze on the controls? A lot do, and if they do, as an untrained person, how do you respond without breaking linkages.

 

We've talked about the reaction time for sub-conscious response at around 50/100 second, vs reactive thought response as long as 3 to 4 seconds, but that's after you've been correctly trained to react to your normal control inputs. How much longer when someone does something totally unexpected which flicks the aircraft into an unstable position - like I did.

 

The average person up for a flight thinks you turn with the rudder like a boat etc.

 

 

[facthunter]

Do we assume the instructors  don't have (or need) the extra training to handle  a non trained person? Let me assure you there's a lot of work they put in to being trained to ensure they do.. What would be legal or sensible in your first suggestion of the second para? Why is that an option to make a comparison with? It's not legal and does it actually happen?.

 

   I think (good ) instructors are pretty special people. Many pilots have said to me they wouldn't have the patience, but there's a lot more to it than that. Your skill and knowledge level has to be right on or one day you won't extract the plane from a situation  the student has put it into.

 

 Feel of the controls? Without some response that's not realistically going to happen and then we are actually having the plane flown by someone not proven capable by a long measure with essentially NO flying experience... There's been a couple of airliners gone in "flown" by friends and young kids. I had one grab the wheel and  start pushing it around but was swiftly "detached" from it as I saw him move towards it. I like having kids up front and anybody else interested but that's all gone now. Yes there was some risk, but some might have started an aviation career because of the experience.   I don't make the rules  neither will I advocate publicly that they be ignored  on  a forum such as this one . Nev

 

 

[walrus]

Going back to the early 1970’s - flying around Australia with three friends in a tri pacer, our leader made a point of having us rotate into the RH front seat and do the flying in cruise so he could navigate. Only problem was that one of us non pilots flew into cloud...

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

I am guessing it comes back to the point of "professionalism" and threat and error management. The professional makes themselves educated on the rules and skils, and when there is an ambiguity applies the TEM process to determine risk and take sensible command action. To get a (suitable) RH seat passenger to hold the aircraft straight and level (under supervision) while the pilot is attending to a necessary task for the safe conduct of the flight, would to me not be breaking the rules.  Before any non standard action, it's always worth concerning your future explanation during tea and biscuits at CASA HQ if you have a non standard outcome. (Circumstances alter cases).

 

 

[facthunter]

All OK when nothing happens which is most often the case. When It goes pear shaped you are wide open, and would be required to justify your actions. No responsible authority could  Condone/ALLOW non trained people to operating the controls in "normal" circumstances. However, using what resources are available to you in other than normal situations are open to you and to be justified at the "tea and biscuits" event or Court you end up in..

 

        If I was operating in a multicrew aircraft, where the other pilot died or was incapacitated some one in the other seat suitably selected and briefed, would be infinitely better than having the seat empty as some controls are not easily accessed from the LH seat. You use whatever resources are available to you dependent on the circumstances. The PIC is by law required to operate the "vessel" in the safest manner possible.

 

At times there has been moves to train people such as wives to a limited extent to be capable of doing some flying if there's an incapacitation . I would always support such actions as it doesn't throw open all  the stable doors in general. It's usually the same plane, POP's old Cesssna and Mum has been navigating (back up) and making sandwiches for a long time.  Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

It may be an excellent idea to get help when needed, but CASA are not going to condone that, unless they do away with their "Strict Liability" clause.

 

That clause says it all. There is no room for common sense.

 

 

[old man emu]

CAR 228 (Unauthorised persons not to manipulate controls) has to be read and acted upon from its position within the Regulations. 

 

It falls in under Part 14 - Air Service Operations

 

Division 3 - Conduct of operations

 

and follows on from Reg 227 - Admission to crew compartment

 

So CAR 228 takes effect if the aircraft is 

 

1. Being used for a commercial flight
    
   
2. Has a separate compartment for the authorised persons operating the aircraft in flight, and
    
   
3. Access to the compartment from the rest of the aircraft whilst in flight can be prevented.
    
   

 

 

 

CASA Instrument 59/17 directs the pilot of an aircraft in which an unauthorised person could interfere with aircraft controls to tell the person how to avoid interfering with them.

 

 

[facthunter]

That's to do with occupying  a seat with access to controls on a Commercial Flight in such planes as a Bandierante which has dual controls but operated single pilot. as a standard procedure.  I've actually had this happen to me  Newcastle- Sydney where I got seated there probably by the person in charge of boarding the passengers who would have known I worked for an Airline as I was on a discounted fare . The chap flying it never said anything at any stage..Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

It may be an excellent idea to get help when needed, but CASA are not going to condone that, unless they do away with their "Strict Liability" clause.

 

That clause says it all. There is no room for common sense.

 

That clause would get you a heavy fine, and yes CASA would prosecute.

 

However, go back to post #2. 

 

There's a rule there which is unambiguous; the student who asked the question received the answer immediately; it's not rocket science to understand.

 

Because there is a safety rule there, you owe a duty of care to your passenger to follow it.

 

If you don't and your passenger's back is broken your insurance or you will be paying for him, probably for the rest of his life, if he proves you negligent.

 

Not only that, but this one is so straightforward that you would probably face a manslaughter charge.

 

I'm intrigued that, once again after someone provides an unambiguous answer, there are people who just can't help chipping away post by post until by some stretched and cracked logic, it's Ok in their eyes to do something that is prohibited. They're a little bit like the factory employee who sits next to an unguarded saw, or twirling spokes, and sticks his finger out again and again so see what happens, until the end is chopped off.

 

 

[turboplanner]

If you're concerned about what would happen if you were incapacitated with your wife on board; a good solution is to get your instructor to teach her how to keep the aircraft in the air and land it. She will be learning other things as part of that, but the time taken to learn survivable landings is quite short and not expensive.

 

 

[facthunter]

There have been occasions where such things were happening and a truncated course was available but things being what they are, I haven't heard of such a thing for a long time now. I think AOPA might have some record of it and have little doubt they would be for it ,as I am. There's NO benefit  (for the CASA) in CASA  going along with such an idea but that doesn't mean it's not a good one and would save lives.. Your wife could always get a full licence or  CERTIFICATE but also she doesn't have to finish ANY course, does she?  Plenty of untrained wives have got the plane down by being talked through it when someone was incapacitated. That's why you have two pilots in all Larger Airliners. Its a matter of using a potential resource that's there with you. 

 

   IF a pilot became very ill in flight you would get medical aid to him /her if possible. you wouldn't say he's not capable of passing a medical to fly today so don't bother  and IF you do he can't exercise the privileges of his licence because he's had this turn, so we all sit back and die.. Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

CAR 228 (Unauthorised persons not to manipulate controls) has to be read and acted upon from its position within the Regulations. 

 

It falls in under Part 14 - Air Service Operations

 

Division 3 - Conduct of operations

 

Somewhere in the CARs you will find a reg which states that private operations must also follow those rules for Air Service Operations.

 

It won't be long before Part 91 comes into force - these rules apply to all. Check out the draft plain english guide on CASA's website - the regs have been published so you could go there instead.

 

"Manipulating flight controls (91.155)

A person must not, and you must not allow a person to, manipulate the flight controls of the aircraft unless the person is authorised or qualified to pilot

the aircraft."

 

 

[turboplanner]

There have been occasions where such things were happening and a truncated course was available but things being what they are, I haven't heard of such a thing for a long time now. I think AOPA might have some record of it and have little doubt they would be for it ,as I am. There's NO benefit  (for the CASA) in CASA  going along with such an idea but that doesn't mean it's not a good one and would save lives.. Your wife could always get a full licence or  CERTIFICATE but also she doesn't have to finish ANY course, does she?  Plenty of untrained wives have got the plane down by being talked through it when someone was incapacitated. That's why you have two pilots in all Larger Airliners. Its a matter of using a potential resource that's there with you. 

 

   IF a pilot became very ill in flight you would get medical aid to him /her if possible. you wouldn't say he's not capable of passing a medical to fly today so don't bother  and IF you do he can't exercise the privileges of his licence because he's had this turn, so we all sit back and die.. Nev

 

Sorry, I should have made it clear that once she's trained she can call a Mayday, and regardless of the legal outcome, she has a better chance of living. I wasn't suggesting doing three or four hours and then taking over now and again in normal operations.

 

 

[facthunter]

 I think we are in furious agreement. Anyhow nothing will change officially like giving a pilot under the hood recoveries from unusual attitudes which most older pilots reckon was the best thing they ever did in their training.  Nev

 

 

[DenisPC9]

That's to do with occupying  a seat with access to controls on a Commercial Flight in such planes as a Bandierante which has dual controls but operated single pilot. as a standard procedure.  I've actually had this happen to me  Newcastle- Sydney where I got seated there probably by the person in charge of boarding the passengers who would have known I worked for an Airline as I was on a discounted fare . The chap flying it never said anything at any stage..Nev

 

That happened to me more than a few times when I lived in PNG in the 1970s.  I was stationed in Mendi, Southern Highlands District (later to become Province) and after a few trips to Moresby and back, I was put in the RH seat.  The aircraft were usually Barons.

 

I am not nor ever was a pilot.  However when they had new pilots on the run, it helped having someone (usually an expat) who was familiar with the route.

 

And whilst travelling around the District on business, flying was the way to go.  A 30 minute flight to say, Erave or Tari would take 10+ hours driving.  In the Highlands it was often cloudy but rarely 10/10s, so when approaching the vicinity of the target ah Station, the PIC would look out the LH side and I would look out the RH side.  Whoever saw it, made the call and the PIC then did what they were paid to do.

 

This also occurred in other Districts where I worked when I was doing Cash runs to Outstations or just jaunting out there for an Inspection or deal with recalcitrant staff.

 

 

[DenisPC9]

If you're concerned about what would happen if you were incapacitated with your wife on board; a good solution is to get your instructor to teach her how to keep the aircraft in the air and land it. She will be learning other things as part of that, but the time taken to learn survivable landings is quite short and not expensive.

 

A couple of decades ago I heard from an RAN Fixed Wing Pilot, when the RAN flew Fixed Wing aircraft, that's that's what they used to do.  An Observer would be given lessons on rudimentary aircraft control and landings.  So if the PIC became incapacitated, someone on board could still bring it down, in a semi-controlled fashion.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

If you are routinely flying with someone it is irresponsible to not make sure they have at least a reasonable chance of landing the aircraft in the event of pilot incapacitation. Any law that limits or prohibits this is likewise stupid and irresponsible. Besides unless someone is stupid enough to use electronic means to record and publish the event of someone "not qualified", "touching the controls (the horror!)"  the law is simply not enforceable, hence also stupid.

 

But what can you expect from the intellectually challenged workers in the sheltered workshop that is CASA?

 

I see Carmody is whining that his organisation is getting bashed on social media. Well, suck it up Princess. Perhaps he should have a look at why this is so. Nobody minds rational, evidence based regulation that aligns largely with common sense and safe operating procedures developed by over 100 years of aviation experience but that is in very  short supply from CASA and its minions like RAAus and GFA etc.

 

Much of regulation has nothing to do with safety for anyone but is there to demonstrate to politicians and the public that "something is being done".