Firstly, I have been told by several lawyers (one of them a barrister working for the CAA) that European law is often badly drafted. A lot of it seems to have been in a pub. The EASA stuff certainly has been, because even a mere private pilot can see huge obvious holes in it (just read the debate here). One could argue that the ambiguity is deliberate, to achieve the FUD effect (which, with the fiercely self regulating tendency of GA, is very cost effective) but I think that is giving these people too much credit.
Secondly, it’s a basic principle that if a law is ambiguous, the ambiguity should be interpreted against the party seeking to gain benefit from it (EASA in this case). Otherwise, you could draft a law which is hugely ambiguous and then beat almost everybody around the head with it because almost everybody would end up breaking it. In the UK, gramatically bad laws almost never get passed (because of the long process they have to pass through) but in Brussels it is easily done.
That is what I don’t understand at all. The easiest way is to read them “as is”, with no interpretation either way. No assumptions, no extrapolations.
There is always interpretation in reading any text including laws. The problem is that it gets even worse in those designed to be read in multiple languages as some cultural cues are lost.
A lot of it seems to have been in a pub
In that case, there is even less to bother about. But I don’t see that many ambiguities if I just read what it say without trying to interpret. Maybe that’s just me.
Archie wrote:
The safety pilot has a defined role. He is not PIC, but will maintain the lookout (assuming you’re talking about IFR practice), and only that. The PIC manipulates the controls and remains PIC.
Archie wrote:
That’s a bit of a silly example. The safety pilot doesn’t have to be IR rated, so what if he isn’t. Then both cannot be PIC, so the aircraft has no PIC at all??? Obviously the original pilot can just remain PIC as it were. He just has made a mistake and has to deal with the consequences.
Ok, I was using the FAA as a seed of common sense in the argument ;)
But actually, to answer your comments….The FAA allows for BOTH pilots to be PIC at the same time…As the safety pilot is a required crew member when PIC 1 is under the hood. For the second quote – well clearly the aircraft shouldn’t be there, so it is an emergency situation (i.e. no one onboard rated to fly the aeroplane at that particular time), so I guess the pilot flying will be the one who would have to explain him or herself on landing (assuming they do land of course)….
But you are right, none of this applies to EASA. However EASA could have made their life a hell of a lot easier if they had just gone out an bought a copy of the FAR AIM and copied Pt. 61/91……..but I have digressed enough :)
However EASA could have made their life a hell of a lot easier if they had just gone out an bought a copy of the FAR AIM and copied Pt. 61/91…
Oh please no! Then we would be subject to the same stringent cost sharing rules that are effective in FAA-land! Thanks, but no thanks! It’s not as if the FAA regulations were all perfectly common sense and all EASA is senseless rubbish. Rarely in life are things that black and white, anyway… That often gets overlooked in heated arguments.
One of our Group has given-up on tailwheel flying, and his share is for sale. He didn’t fly often enough to stay current after doing his tailwheel conversion. With no suitable tailwheel instructor locally, he did his check-out in a Pa38, and did more than 3 landings without the instructor touching the controls. He twice signed out our Jodel as P1, taking me as a passenger. On both occasions I was eventually handed control, after several go-arounds. I have logged 2 short flights, with landing, but no take-off. This had happened in previous years.
If it is illegal, presumably you should technically have called a MAYDAY to legitimise a competent pilot landing a perfectly serviceable aircraft?
I take it they’re not training on the Super-Decathlon any more?
I don’t know about the SuperDec. It might be for aerobatics. It’s not similar to a Jodel. Our member had tried a tailwheel course in one, at Perth but gave up.
If what I did was illegal, I anticipate my on-line confession will lead to prosecution.
“Mayday” would be inappropriate, as there was no danger. Not even “Pan-pan”, as no special action from ATC was required. Neither of these is appropriate for just breaking the law.
AlanB wrote:
The FAA allows for BOTH pilots to be PIC at the same time…But you are right, none of this applies to EASA. However EASA could have made their life a hell of a lot easier if they had just gone out an bought a copy of the FAR AIM and copied Pt. 61/91……..but I have digressed enough :)
LeSving wrote:
It seems to me that some people automatically and probably subconsciously put their own restrictions of some kind into the meaning.
You may be right. However it might also be that some people haven’t kept up with the latest developments and standards industry wide, and are trying to find holes in the new laws that are a result of that. 
Peter wrote:
Hmmm… There are those who would argue that a flight starts with brakes off. After all, that is what you, as a pilot, log.
You’re right there. That is how flight time is defined, so I suppose that would automatically be the definition of a “flight” too.
FCL.010
