boscomantico wrote:
Then they should have written so. They have written something different though.
It’s a sad accident to very qualified pilot, with no clear conclusion to what should have been done differently. When reading accident reports, I often find myself (incorrectly surely) thinking that this could not have happened to me, that I would have done differently, that I wouldn’t have done this or that mistake. Not this one.
boscomantico wrote:
Then they should have written so. They have written something different though.
From:
The instructor, given his qualification level (only one to have IFR, see on qualifications page) was the PIC. The passenger could be at the controls as pilot during the VFR phases, and as student under supervision of the instructor during the IFR phases"
Can someone elaborate on the difference between non-PIC pilot, and student under supervision?
According to the flight plan filed, Stefan was PIC.
Un appareil photo de type Reflex a été retrouvé, et la carte mémoire a pu être
déchargée. Une photo prise lors du vol de l’accident, montre que le pilote propriétaire
de l’avion était en place droite et que le passager était en place gauche.
A photo camera type Reflex was found and the memory card could be downloaded. One picture taken during the accident flight shows that the owner pilot of the aircraft was seated on the right seat and the passenger was on the left seat.
Stefan was German and German-educated. Therefore it is pretty clear that the other guy was flying. A German educated pilot would not sit on the right seat if he intends to perform the flight.
achimha wrote:
Reflex
meaning (D)SLR
achimha wrote:
Stefan was German and German-educated. Therefore it is pretty clear that the other guy was flying.
That doesn’t go against what’s in the report. The other guy could have been flying, but the PIC was in the right seat.
I’m not sure why the “who was at the controls” is that relevant – this seemed to be something rather slowly unfolding, rather than, say, a bad control input that causes damage on landing (and where the instructor – PIC might not be able to react fast enough).
My interpretation is that Stefan filed the flight plan (as he can do it conveniently with his profile) but he was not performing the flight. He was merely co-pilot.
Noe wrote:
I’m not sure why the “who was at the controls” is that relevant
These reports are all about finding out what happened and why it happened. Accidents get correlated to pilot experience, personality, etc.
The report only talks about one tablet. This means the left seat pilot either did not have a tablet or it was not found. Most likely not found because I can’t imagine performing this flight without a moving map. That wouldn’t make much sense. His cockpit equipment was not good enough to not have a moving map.
achimha wrote:
His cockpit equipment was not good enough to not have a moving map.
KLN94 and KMD550? Isn’t this sufficient if you file IFR plan with IFR departure and the idea to descend on ILS and cancel IFR once you’re visual?
achimha wrote:
My interpretation is that Stefan filed the flight plan (as he can do it conveniently with his profile) but he was not performing the flight. He was merely co-pilot.
You mean he was legally PIC but they might have agreed that the other person would act as PIC?
No he would be pnf iso pf
Noe wrote:
Can someone elaborate on the difference between non-PIC pilot, and student under supervision?
You are a non-pic pilot (or pilot under supervision) when you are rated for the flight, but you are under supervision of the instructor. On french logbooks, it is “P” as “Pilote” pilot
You are student under supervision (or student pilot) when you are non-rated for the flight. On french logbooks, it is “EP” as “Élève Pilote” student pilot
In both cases, the instructor is PIC. On french logbooks, “CDB” as “Commandant de Bord” Pilot in Command.
The BEA seems to consider that every time a flight instructor is in the right seat, he is acting as instructor, and he is PIC.
So on this logic, if I go with my best friend, who happens to be a flight instructor, on a lunchtrip, for a flight I am rated to fly, and outside any renewal or prorogation, I should be considered as a pilot under supervision, and the instructor as a PIC.
Seems pretty weird.
I think this logic is used in the accident case because part of flight has been conducted under IFR rules, although the left seat pilot was not instrument rated.
So it would mean that on this part of the flight, he was a student pilot and the instructor PIC, and that the cancellation of the IFR plan did not change this fact, the instructor remaining PIC, and the left-seat pilot only becoming “pilot under supervision” as he was from this moment rated to fly the aircraft.
