EdFred
Taxi to Parking
If you don't have a list of aircraft where a non-licensed pilot would stand a high probability of being in a control seat, just say so.
Last edited:
Private Pilot letting a unlicensed person fly
- Thread starter brien23
- Start date
If you don't have a list of aircraft where a non-licensed pilot would stand a high probability of being in a control seat, just say so.
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
You also can't take your seat belt off while the autopilot is engaged!
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
So much for the usefulness of a Gatoraide bottle!!
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
And the only reason you really need an autopilot.
alfadog
Final Approach
Yeah, that is my feeling on it also. The "un..." is a non-entity as far as the regs are concerned (except as a pax, of course).
Student pilot is a pilot for this purpose. You just can't strap a piece of luggage or a kid in a car-seat into the left seat even though it may be more convenient.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
If I don't have a medical (or student cert) yet, I'm not a student pilot.
In the US, totally legal.
91.109(c) doesn't say "No pilot may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight" without a safety pilot; it says "No person."
What is allowed to be logged is irrelevant, because if a certificated pilot flies under the hood and decides not to log it, 91.109(c) has still been violated.
You're backing up the non-pilot at the controls.
Last edited:
It doesn't put any qualifications on the word 'pilot'.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
And such proof of alleged violation to be found where? Even so, the non-pilot isn't operating the aircraft, the pilot is. You aren't backing anyone up, you're the only pilot on board.
If it's not even able to be logged, the situation doesn't legally exist. Just like giving instruction as a non CFI - you aren't giving any instruction by the regulations. Since the non-pilot can't even legally log the hood time, it isn't legally happening. Which is different from choosing not to log it. No 91.109 bust. Feel free to write the Chief Counsel on it if you disagree with me. Really, go ahead. I'm sure everyone here will thank you.
So there's the options. Defer to my judgement, or get the Chief Counsel involved.
Last edited:
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
So a non-pilot is a pilot. Got it. Let's see how that flies.
Not quite the story. The pilot wasn't in the bathroom but in the cockpit. They were rotating kids into the left seat with the autopilot on. The son managed to apply force enough to the yoke long enough to cause the autopilot to partial turn off (roll control disabled while the rest continued) and neither the first officer (who was in his seat) nor the captain notice the autopilot had been partially disengaged. After noticing that something was not right they failed to correct the matter before the aircraft rolled beyond the point of recovery. Further discovered if they hadn't fought it through the sequence the autopilot would have gone into "trained monkey mode" and avoided the resulting stall.
comanchepilot
En-Route
not unless the insurance company or rental agreement requires you to be in the left seat . . . . most rental agreements that have been vetted by lawyers and insurance companies now do . . .
brien23
Pattern Altitude
From Seattle FSDO "Chip Peterson" 800-354-1940 "a private pilot can not let anyone not a licenced pilot fly the aircraft" . This includes EAA young eagles and CAP orientation Flights with Private pilots license as PIC.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Can a commercial pilot? Or an ATP? According to Chip no one can fly an aircraft. None of us domestics are licensed...
Chip Peterson must share DNA or a bed with Rebecca Macpherson. Let's hope those two idiots don't reproduce.
Last edited:
The 'sole manipulator of the controls' is a pilot.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
What's in the FARs that backs his opinion?
In the Aussie rules it's clearly spelled out.docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
Please provide the relevant FAR chapter and verse. I had a cop tell me I couldn't land there. When I asked him if he was law enforcement he said something like; 'you bet your *** I am, and you can't land here'. So, I asked him which "law" he was enforcing, and to please find it for me in the muni, county, state, or federal laws rules or regulations. Of course, he couldn't find one. Since it was private property(of course) I asked him to leave now.
brien23
Pattern Altitude
You might call him the phone number is listed above and try to get something other than his interpretation of part 91.
In the plain language of the regulations.
The definition of "operate" in 1.1 is not that narrow.
"Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in §91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise)."
If there were no certificated pilot on board, would you claim that no one was operating the aircraft, for the purposes of 91.109(c)?
91.109(c) doesn't say anything about backing anyone up. That concept is your own invention.
What makes you think that a non-pilot can't log the time? 61.51(g) uses the word "person," not "pilot."
The regulations don't say that no instruction is being given; they only place restrictions on what can be logged as instruction.
What regulation prohibits the non-pilot from logging the hood time?
Which is different from choosing not to log it. No 91.109 bust. Feel free to write the Chief Counsel on it if you disagree with me. Really, go ahead. I'm sure everyone here will thank you.
So there's the options. Defer to my judgement, or get the Chief Counsel involved.
I'm happy to defer to the plain language of the regulations. Your options are to do the same, or try to get the Chief Counsel to agree with you!
Last edited:
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
In the plain language of the regulations.
The definition of "operate" in 1.1 is not that narrow.
Yes, as Kramer would say that plane was "outta control!" Who is using the aircraft or authorizing it? Assuming it's not a joyride or stolen - the pilot is authorizing the operation. The non-pilot is a carbon based autopilot, the pilot is the operator.
91.109(c) doesn't say anything about backing anyone up. That concept is your own invention.
Really, so you can be the only person in the plane, and be a safety pilot? Look at all the other common uses of safety. Safety line, safety cutoff, etc...all operate as a backup, not as a primary. As the only pilot, you aren't a safety pilot. Ergo 91.109 isn't applicable.
What makes you think that a non-pilot can't log the time? 61.51(g) uses the word "person," not "pilot."
What would the non-pilot (legally) log it as? Non-pilot, no instruction given, there is nothing to log.
The regulations don't say that no instruction is being given; they only place restrictions of what can be logged as instruction.
I was drawing a parallel. If the logged instruction isn't legal/doesn't exist happens, because there is no CFI, the safety pilot doesn't exist, because there is no pilot to be a safety pilot to.
What regulation prohibits the non-pilot from logging the hood time?
See my previous comment as what he would log it as.
I'm happy to defer to the plain language of the regulations. Your options are to do the same, or try to get the Chief Counsel to agree with you!
I assert your interpretations are incorrect.
The definition of "operate" in 1.1 is not that narrow.
"Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in §91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise)."
If there were no certificated pilot on board, would you claim that no one was operating the aircraft, for the purposes of 91.109(c)?Yes, as Kramer would say that plane was "outta control!" Who is using the aircraft or authorizing it? Assuming it's not a joyride or stolen - the pilot is authorizing the operation. The non-pilot is a carbon based autopilot, the pilot is the operator.
91.109(c) doesn't say anything about backing anyone up. That concept is your own invention.
Really, so you can be the only person in the plane, and be a safety pilot? Look at all the other common uses of safety. Safety line, safety cutoff, etc...all operate as a backup, not as a primary. As the only pilot, you aren't a safety pilot. Ergo 91.109 isn't applicable.
What makes you think that a non-pilot can't log the time? 61.51(g) uses the word "person," not "pilot."
What would the non-pilot (legally) log it as? Non-pilot, no instruction given, there is nothing to log.
The regulations don't say that no instruction is being given; they only place restrictions of what can be logged as instruction.
I was drawing a parallel. If the logged instruction isn't legal/doesn't exist happens, because there is no CFI, the safety pilot doesn't exist, because there is no pilot to be a safety pilot to.
What regulation prohibits the non-pilot from logging the hood time?
See my previous comment as what he would log it as.
I'm happy to defer to the plain language of the regulations. Your options are to do the same, or try to get the Chief Counsel to agree with you!
I assert your interpretations are incorrect.
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
FSDO opinions are like *******s, everyone has one.
If it ain't in writing, it never happened.
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
Jeezus people every time you don't let a nonpilot fly an angel dies. Stop killing angels goshdammit.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Don't look at me, Richard and Geoff are the ones saying no.
Anyone who climbs in my plane that isn't a Lifeline Passenger has been offered the chance to fly.
brien23
Pattern Altitude
How do you get a ruling from the Faa Chief Counsel on this.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
YOU DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do not write them any questions that could in any way possibly further restrict what we can or cannot do in an airplane.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 11,211
- Location
- Lone Jack, MO
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg Bockelman
What question is it that you want to have answered? And do you REALLY want to go down that path?
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 16,134
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
Don't look at me, Richard and Geoff are the ones saying no.
HEY!!!!!!
Anyone who rides with me rides at a control station. And I always let them drive. But not with a hood.
Amen to that!
Don't look at me, Richard and Geoff are the ones saying no.
I let people fly too. And since I have private pilot privileges, I even let them do it under the hood if they want!
Nice try, but notice that the 1.1 definition has an "or" in there. It doesn't say "using AND authorizing," it says "using OR authorizing." So under the wording of the definition, either one, using, or authorizing the use, of the aircraft is sufficient by itself to be considered operating it.
That doesn't follow from what I said.
Good luck using that weak plausibility argument in front of an administrative law judge.
You keep ignoring the fact that the logging regulations use the word "person," not "pilot." Based on 61.51, it looks to me like the non-pilot person could log the flight time during which he was operating the controls (i.e., using the aircraft), and the simulated instrument time during which he was operating the controls under the hood.
As with the logging regulation, you are ignoring the fact that it says that a "person" must have a safety pilot. It doesn't say that the person must be a pilot in order for that requirement to apply.
Well, we each have our opinions.
But don't worry: If you let your medical and CFI certificates lapse, start exercising the privileges of a sport pilot certificate, and let a non-pilot passenger fly the plane while under the hood, I won't turn you in!
Last edited:
brien23
Pattern Altitude
Their seems to be more than a few who see nothing wrong with letting someone unlicensed fly a aircraft while they Private pilot certificate PIC sit back and ride along. Their are age requirements and student pilot certificates required to become a pilot. Those same people I would suspect would never let someone unlicensed or without a learners permit behind the wheel of their car and let them drive them around. The original post was Legal or Not I suspect just about everyone has let someone not licensed fly for a while to try it legal or not.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
I think the original question was answered very early on -- it is completely legal for a Private Pilot to let an unlicensed person manipulate the controls on a private, non-commercial flight in a light airplane of which s/he is legally acting as PIC. Of course, some people chose to use this as a platform to complain about some rules they don't like, but their posts weren't relevant to the original question. In addition, there are some safety issues to be considered, but again, that's not relevant to the original question about the legality.
Bottom line: Yes, it's legal to do what the OP asked about as long as no money's changing hands and everyone understands it's not really flight training.
Last edited:
Uhhh, I'll let pretty much anyone fly, but I'm at a control seat.
brien23
Pattern Altitude
Did you miss the post about Seattle FSDO view that it is not legal.
ClimbnSink
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,997
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg
If Ron says it is legal, it is legal.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
I've tried to make this point many times. If the Inspector believes this he needs to put it in writing on a FAA letterhead and sign it, or have an email from his email address.
"I was told" doesn't hold water.