I always give people a go and will continue to do so.
I can’t find any definition of “pilot”, however the Basic Regulation says:
Except when under training, a person may only act as a pilot if he or she holds a licence and a medical certificate appropriate to the operation to be performed.
OK, so a “pilot” is someone who actually has the appropriate papers for the operation, in EU at least. That Basic Regulation is not law in Norway as far as I know, only the part NCO is (for non commercial operations). Not that it matters, except if you need to pee (and have a toilet on board). You cannot legally do that in EU without a “pilot” with the appropriate papers, but you can in Norway as long as it is some sort of “pilot” 
This is only for EASA-aircraft, not valid for Annex II. In an Annex II aircraft you can pee, even if there is no other actual “pilot” on board.
It’s crazy. That is the only effect of that “Basic Regulation”. It prevent the PIC from going to the toilet to do his business. How many single pilot private aircraft has a toilet? 1% maybe. When you really have to, there is no other way than to go, and how many will care about that regulation in such circumstances? exactly zero.
I think from a legal point (which was the original question) the EASA Article 7 is more than clear.
Except when under training, a person may only act as a pilot if he
or she holds a licence and a medical certificate appropriate to the
operation to be performed.
We can turn it which ever way we wish that is how it is.
Unless you are a FI, letting passengers fly is illegal. Period. Therefore, posting videos of such feats is quite stupid, as it is basically a for all to see confession that you broke the law. And it will eventually attract attention of the responsible regulator, who will then take this as a very welcome reason to tighten the law even more.
Why is it that today everyone has to bragg with everything he does on the bl**dy internet? Especcially if it is illegal? Why not simply shut up about it and enjoy while it lasts?
I know people who do not allow cameras at all anymore in their airplanes, because they are afraid that their pax will post pics on the net which will cause some forumite anywhere green with envy to post the link to the local CAA saying “he was flying too low” or “see how much he is off the prescribed flight track” or " look here officer, he has done this and that". Yes, this kind of stuff happens, not only in aviation but a lot more than you think. As a matter of fact, I have had two of my flight reports reported over the last 5 years and had to write a statement about one of them. No consequences but there may well be.
For the same reasons, airline pilots will not let anyone take pictures or movies anymore if they are on a legal flight deck ride (with a cockpit permit), because almost immediately there will be some “concerned citizen” writing to the airline and rising hell. Happened to two very good people I know and they had their cockpit permit authority removed for a long time as a consequence, even though everything had been legal in the formal sense.
Face it: Whatever you post on the net can be used against you. And you may have pi$$ed off somebody in the past, if you are as outspoken as me or some others here, or former or actual journalists, or what ever. And you deliver into their hands the proof to get you in trouble if you post such stuff on youtube.
There is nothing wrong with posting youtube movies or facebook posts, just keep it to legal stuff. That goes for every aspect of life.
As for letting passengers fly: I can see that there is a problem with that. Most of us are not CFI’s nor have they got the training to supervise and to react to unforseen actions of the said people. Of course, if you know someone really well, like your spouse, then that risk is minimal. But it is definitly a non standard operation for a non-FI and therefore one should think about it.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Unless you are a FI, letting passengers fly is illegal.
Negative. You cannot deduce that from the sentence above. It simply states under which circumstance and with what legal papers a person can legally act as a pilot. You have to read what it actually say, not assume what is written is meant something else, and something more than than the words reads. It is merely a definition of what constitutes a pilot within the framework of the regulations.
The operational aspect of the “pilot” does not show up until you read part NCO. Specifically the several pages written about a very special kind of pilot, the pilot-in-command, PIC. The only thing written about the pilot and the formalities in the cockpit is:
f) During flight, the pilot-in-command shall:
(1) except for balloons, keep his/her safety belt fastened while at his/her station; and
(2) remain at the controls of the aircraft at all times except if another pilot is taking the controls.
Again, you have to read what is written. If the authorities would prohibit passengers from “flying”, or operating the controls, be sure, they would have written it explicitly and clearly. There is no such thing here. It doesn’t even say that the PIC has to control the aircraft, only he shall remain at the controls and can only “un-remain” if another “pilot” takes the controls.
That’s really absurd. When it says “another pilot” then that means pilot, and not passenger. And a “pilot” is only somebody with a valid licence and rating for that aircraft. A passenger without a licence and rating will never be called “pilot”.
Flyer59 wrote:
That’s really absurd. When it says “another pilot” then that means pilot, and not passenger. And a “pilot” is only somebody with a valid licence and rating for that aircraft. A passenger without a licence and rating will never be called “pilot”.
You are correct, but nobody is calling a passenger a pilot (by that article 7 definition, well except he actually happens to be a pilot). The point is, touching the controls does not make you a pilot. The second point is, there is nothing preventing any other persons, pilot or no pilot, touching the controls except for one thing: The PIC can say NO.
This is basically the single most important thing about part NCO. The PIC is in charge of everything from the moment you enter the aircraft to the moment you exit. Exactly how the PIC choose to conduct the flight is irrelevant as long as he is AT the controls – or another pilot is taking the control. Of course he has to obey all the other rules and regulations. Look at it this way: it does not say “remain in control of the aircraft”, it say AT the controls of the aircraft. Why would the authorities write what they did, if what they meant really was “in control of the aircraft” ?
To me this is crystal clear, and if I am wrong, then all ambulance helicopters would be grounded ages ago.
In US regulation, the pilot acting as pilot in command is the person responsible for the safety of the flight.
Sec. 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
Nowhere is it stated that they must also be the one manipulating the controls.
In order for a pilot to log PIC time in an aircraft which requires only a single pilot, the person must be rated in category and class and be the sole manipulator of the controls. To log PIC, if one is not also acting as PIC, does not require a medical or that the pilot manipulating the controls be current. Only the pilot acting as PIC requires a medical and must meet all currency requirements and have any necessary endorsements.
A passenger may not interfere with the PIC, but there is no prohibition on a passenger who is not a pilot to manipulate the controls with the pilot’s permission. In US regulation, if something is not prohibited, it is allowed.
While a passenger is manipulating the controls, the pilot acting as PIC may not log flight time as PIC, nor may the passenger log the time. The only provision for logging PIC in this situation is based on who is manipulating the controls and if they are rated in category and class. However, this is in no way illegal under US regulation.
A flight instructor may provide flight instruction to a person who is not an appropriately rated pilot and may log the time as PIC for that time any dual instruction is being provided even if they are not manipulating the controls. In this case, the person may log the time as training time.
Why is it that today everyone has to bragg with everything he does on the bl**dy internet? Especcially if it is illegal? Why not simply shut up about it and enjoy while it lasts?
One might also ask why contributors on aviation forums are so bl**dy keen to find reasons why everything is illegal
One might also ask why contributors on aviation forums are so bl**dy keen to find reasons why everything is illegal
Exactly.
