That’s wrong, sorry. I have no time to translate the whole thing but what Airborne wrote is correct, I am pretty sure.
The most important sentences:
(2) Airplanes have to be controlled by the PIC. The PIC has to be in the PIC’s seat. Exceptions: Instruction and Check flights.
(3) If there is more than 1 pilot on board then one pilot has to be declared PIC. ….(…)
(4) (….) if nobody was declared PIC (3) then the pilot in the PIC seat is the PIC. (…)
If the POH does not say which seat is the seat for the PIC then the left seat is the PIC seat in all Airplanes, Motor Gliders and Sailplanes with side by side seating (…)
… except that the last sentence – “If the POH does not say which seat”… – is a sub-paragraph to (4) and does not apply to (2) and (3). You inserted a line break and changed the indentation from the original. You should have written
(4) (….) if nobody was declared PIC (3) then the pilot in the PIC seat is the PIC. (…) If the POH does not say which seat is the seat for the PIC then the left seat is the PIC seat in all Airplanes, Motor Gliders and Sailplanes with side by side seating (…)
You can believe me that i understand this text. And your interpretation is wrong. It says EXPLICITELY that the line applies to (3).
You are not allowed to fly the (Cirrus) from the right seat. And it would make very little sense anyway to try it, because you cannot reach some controls and cannot even see the Circuit Breaker panel.
Alexis wrote:
And your interpretation is wrong. It says EXPLICITELY that the line applies to (3).
Shouting won’t make you more correct. This § 2 doesn’t exist any more anyways so it’s a bit moot to discuss now. But your interpretation is wrong. (4) was only about the definition of who is the responsible person on board, and referred to (3) to define the case where no definition of the “seat of the responsible person” is contained in the aircraft manual.
The whole thing was about assigning liability in case of an incident or accident. It was not about prescribing to anyone where to sit in the plane.
Very clear from the text itself if you know how to read a legal text.
I was not shouting, but thank you for the education.
I am absolutely sure, and you know why? Because i researched this with the German LBA after I did the CRI rating. I am also sure that you misinterprete the text.
Please tell me how you can safely fly an airplane from the right seat when you cannot reach all controls or not even see the CB panel.
I rest my case :-)
Flying the plane “safely” is irrelevant to this discussion – see RWY20’s post above.
How about this: somebody without a PPL is having a flying lesson in an SR22, LHS of course. The FI is in the RHS. Who is PIC? The FI “cannot be” since he can’t see the CB panel………. so the student is PIC, without a PPL.
Alexis wrote:
Please tell me how you can safely fly an airplane from the right seat when you cannot reach all controls or not even see the CB panel.
You might not, and it wouldn’t be a good idea. But that is not what § 2 LuftVO was about.
When you consider all the court cases the LBA lost, it might be a safer bet to always take the contrary position to them if you want to have a correct interpretation of a law. :-)
Well, until the LBA loses this case too I will follow their rules.
The exception of a flight with a CFI is mentioned in the text. Yes, the CFI is the PIC in this case.
Looks like you are right that the LBA’s position is no longer legally correct. Here’s a good article about the changes:
http://air-law.de/sitz-des-verantwortlichen-luftfahrzeugfuehrers-nach-wegfall-des-§-2-luftvo-alt/
Let’s check now what the POH says. For example i know that it’s in the PA-28’s and the DA-20’s POH that the type can only be flown solo from the left seat.
Alexis wrote:
For example i know that it’s in the PA-28’s
I can’t find that. Where is it stated?
