achimha wrote:
This is the only thing I could find, it doesn’t directly say that the “passenger” did not have an IR. I do not know him personally but that should be possible to find out.
But it does say further that the “passenger” could have been pilot in the VFR portion, but not on the IFR portion. What else could cause that other than a lack of/lapsed IR?
Indeed.
Le passager pouvait être aux commandes en tant
que pilote pendant les phases de vol en VFR et en tant qu’élève sous la supervision
de l’instructeur pendant les phases de vol en IFR.
The passenger could have been at the controls as pilot during the flight phases under VFR and as student under supervision of the instructor during the phases under IFR.
Stefan does not need an IRI for that. You can have your dog manipulate the controls as long as you retain responsability. The “passenger” could steer the airplane under IFR but Stefan would still have been the pilot.
OK, but if you remain PIC while letting somebody handle the controls, that is immaterial. The other person could be your grandma.
The possible issue here, which the BEA may be getting at, is who was the PIC. Not who was flying; that’s irrelevant.
I think the other way around, Peter. The purpose of an accident report remains to identify root causes and to learn from them. Who was legally PIC is irrelevant, confusion about that after the flight makes no difference. Who was flying, and who was doing what in the cockpit might have a bearing on the accident.
I for one think that while the report is unsurprisingly inconclusive, we still learned a lot from it through the speculation here. It does not even matter if the speculation is right.
For example – we are now all aware about a possible source of confusion in a French chart, and some will be safer because of this knowledge. It does not matter if that actually was the cause or a factor, we have all learned that.
Compared to that discussion, I have learned nothing that makes anyone safer from the PIC discussion.
Peter wrote:
Can’t you change the PIC partway through a flight e.g. after IFR cancellation?No. You are PIC for a whole flight.
You are PIC for a whole flight.
Which country operates that rule?
The purpose of an accident report remains to identify root causes and to learn from them. Who was legally PIC is irrelevant, confusion about that after the flight makes no difference. Who was flying, and who was doing what in the cockpit might have a bearing on the accident.
OK; agreed. However sometimes accident reports have a bearing on subsequent legal matters. There have been many reports from the UK, of the AAIB having to redraft some of their reports after pressure from family lawyers. I have no idea if this is true.
This is a reminder to all that flying in mountainous terrain, below the surrounding crests, in marginal weather is dangerous.
That might be a bit over-cautious (depending on ones definition of “marginal”). If we didn’t all fly when and where our local AWS says “cloud covers hills”, we wouldn’t fly much.
I would rather say that entering IMC en-route without first complying rather strictly with the instrument flight rules is unwise – and not only because it is illegal. Switching to and from IFR in class G is just a matter of preparation, discipline and practice, which folk are unlikely to acquire if they are told, with no objective evidence, that it is inherently dangerous.
Jacko wrote:
I would rather say that entering IMC en-route without first complying rather strictly with the instrument flight rules is unwise – and not only because it is illegal.
I agree, it is fairly straightforward. You can’t go from IFR to VFR unless you are visual with the terrain and confident you can remain so. ie stay above MEA unless you are visual. Ad hoc IFR with a very unclear transition has caused a lot of accidents.
Having read the entire report (in French), twice, I fail to comprehend the decision making process here. These guys had a perfect valley to fly along below the overcast, yet to save perhaps two or three minutes elected to scud-run in mountains. It may sound harsh, but there’s a word for that: stupid.
Who was or was not PIC is a red herring.
PS: of course you can change the PIC role during a flight (although I don’t know the rules for Germany – are they different).
This is exactly what I don’t get, because Stefan was one of the best organised pilots I know. Not stupid for sure. Sure he was in IMC at the end during the “VFR” portion (nobody flies into a mountain otherwise, except in a canyon) and something made him think 6500ft is OK.
