Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

How much democracy in the cockpit

A PPL can act both as PIC and as co-pilot.

That comes from ICAO Annex 1 but has never been acheivable in real terms in the UK. To be a co-pilot it would have to be certified for two pilots which means it would be type rated and to fly it you would need the ATPL exams, probably an IR and a Type Rating. The FAA allowed unrated pilots to act as co-pilot but the UK never did. So in essence its a totally useless privilege.

there is nothing preventing another pilot to act as co-pilot even though the aircraft does not require one

There is an official title for them – Passenger

‘Co-pilot’ means a pilot operating other than as pilot-in-command, on an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required,

I screwed up on my post above, its 1000 hours to be a PPL Examiner but only 250 hours as FI compared to 1500 under UK rules. For the LAPL you only need 100 as FI, so in theory you could go from being a Restricted FI to an Examiner in the same week!

LeSving wrote:

A PPL can act both as PIC and as co-pilot.

Well, but only in multicrew cockpits. That would rule out the vast majority of all SEP/SET aircraft and a good chunk of multiengine GA-aircraft, so it is of little relevance.

FCL.010 Definitions
[…]
‘Co-pilot’ means a pilot operating other than as pilot-in-command, on an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required, but excluding a pilot who is on board the aircraft for the sole purpose of receiving flight instruction for a licence or rating.
[…]

Furthermore, as the case with the LAPL, Crew Coordination is not part of the PPL syllabus. You will need to gain the MCC competency afterwards (FCL.720.A (d)).

Having said that, FCL.010 further defines:
‘Pilot-in-command’ (PIC) means the pilot designated as being in command and charged with the safe conduct of the flight

That clearly points at no legal problem when delegating tasks to (licensed/pedestrian) passengers. The PIC is responsible, nonetheless. I, as instructor, do recommend to my students to fly together and share the tasks. Not only is it more fun to work together, you can learn a lot from each other and normally two pilots compensate for each pilots weak points.

In the question of interfering in case of immediate danger, I think sanity and reason dictates that to advert death any means are allowed. It is always better to explain why you did something, than letting the BFU (AAIB, AAIU, BEA, TSB, NTSB, etc.) find out why you didn’t do anything. Or in other words, if the emergency enters the cockpit, the rules leave.

mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

eddsPeter wrote:

To share with you one of mine experiences. Compared to my wife I’m a very experienced pilot, with a lot of hours more than she has. Once when arriving at an airfield I altos gh otherwise adviced I took the wrong landing direction with a lot of tailwind. She told me in flight that I was wrong. I just said “no I’m right”, she stopped to insist and I made the landing. On ground I realised my mistake and we had an argument why she stopped to point out my mistake in flight. The answer was : You are the PIC and you have much more experience then I have.

That was a good lesson to learn for me. Never to be overconvinced about what I’m doing is right. Just give room for communication and put more democracy into the cockpit.

What do you think about democracy concepts in the little aircrafts? How fare would you go with it regarding second pilots, instructors or passengers?

The danger is that you will miss some parts of the big picture. For instance, letting one handle the radio and/or the navigation (which is in essence what you are doing with an VFR nav app). Then IF an emergency situation should emerge, the PIC has to take action, but now he has to do it with less overall view of the situation than he otherwise would have had. This has to be weighted up against the fact that two heads think better than one, (even if the other head is a nav app or autopilot), and the probability of entering an emergency situation due to some pilot error (nav, weather related) is diminished.

Legally there IS a difference between PPL and LAPL. A PPL can act both as PIC and as co-pilot. With a LAPL you can only act as a PIC. A single pilot aircraft needs no co-pilot, but as far as I know, there is nothing preventing another pilot to act as co-pilot even though the aircraft does not require one. It’s just that he cannot write anything meaningful in his logbook, and the responsibilities has to be sorted out up front. Besides, a PIC is not required to fly the aircraft, or navigate or any other things except:

(PIC) means the pilot designated as being in command and charged with the safe conduct of the flight

It’s only natural to share the work in my opinion, but a PIC cannot share the command and safe conduct things. A corollary to this is, according to the law, no one else can ever be in command or charged with the safe conduct of the flight. This is what the license is all about, it is not to fly, not to navigate, but to be PIC. You have to show you have the required skills, the medicals and so on. As long as all that is OK, and you operate according to the law, no one else can tell you how to do things, how to delegate, who pushes the buttons etc. You are the captain of the ship, that is what the license say. It doesn’t say you are the captain – but you have to listen to what any arbitrary bureaucrat “feels” or think the “actual meaning of the law” is etc.

I also agree 100% with USflyer, and it is important to sort things out before the flight, and tell passengers (and co pilots) who is the boss.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

(2) The CFI should, except in the case of ATOs providing flight test training, have completed 1 000 hours of flight time as pilot-in-command (PIC)

This is at an ATO conducting modular or integrated courses, for the CPL, IR and ATPL, not to be confused with small organisations conducting PPL training.
In the good old days the CFI at a PPL school would also have been a PPL examiner and that required 1500 hours instructional time not the current 500 hours under EU regulations, or just 200 hours to examine candidates for a LAPL. Its an odd kind of logic that says if we have a lower level of qualification, the examiner also needs a lower level of knowledge and experience to verify it. Smacks of the blind leading the blind!

I also recall a school where the CFI was an AFI and had to be supervised by a lesser mortal! And perhaps the daftest of all an AFI (ME) who was a CRE (ME) under grandfather rights.

If you fly as a passenger with another pilot, that’s just the way it is. You have to accept that he is the pilot and that you will not interfere, all the way to the landing, or, possibly, all the way to the crash (unless specific other agreements are taken for some reason).

I couldnt disagree more strongly.

I have done a bit of mentoring and flying with pilots new on type and here are three scenarios that come to mind.

I recall coming off a grass strip, in a strong cross wind, 4 up at MOTOW. Very shortly after the take off the pilot pulled too hard on the column, as discussed afterwards because there was a wood at the back of the strip and he wanted as much height as possible. I suggested he ease forward on the column, but he didnt in the “heat” of the moment. We had also briefed before that a gentle left hand turn would avoid the forest and put us over open fields – which he forgot. With stall warning going, a rapid rate of sink and an aerobatic aircraft that would happily drop a wing rapidly, it was time to intervene. Of course I have no idea what the outcome would have been if I had not, but very happy to have done so.

I recall a trip over Germany, wasnt paying much attention and there was a Cessna coming stright at us, I still cant believe how close, and I do mean close. Neither pilot had seen each other, and I dont think either was about to. Still very happy for the short but forceful intervention. I only saw the aircraft I suspect because I wasnt flying, wasnt looking, but glanced up at the “right” moment.

Flying aeros once the pilot fronze in a spin. I thought most pilots flying side by side in an aerobat will make it clear that if the pilot fails to react a hard arm will intervene?

Thank goodness never been there but I can imagine an engine failure after take off in a twin is a time to watch. We all get rusty and all can be over come by the moment. Personally I would keep an eye on any low hours / non current pilot, and hope they me, if the other pilot was current and up to speed. Its still too easy to spin the thing.

Well the CRI isn’t allowed to do ab initio training, the trainee of a CRI has to hold a license himself.

As Gary Burghoff once put it playing “Radar” O’Reilly in M*A*S*H: I don’t try to understand the system. It slows down work.

Last Edited by mh at 07 Feb 11:59
mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

Interesting how a FI without CPL knowledge is restricted to instruction for the LAPL, wheras a CRI who does not need CPL level knowledge can do club checks on licence holders and teach for SEP and other class and type ratings.

Well… Most things have been said, but I’d anyway like to side with those supporting Vieke. If I was onboard as a passenger and I felt the PIC was doing something unsafe, I would say so and nothing more. But if I felt an accident was imminent, then I would definitely take controls. I’d rather lose my license than my life. Not that I believe I would run any such risk, despite USFlyers’ ideas.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

RobertL18C wrote:

If I might add that one of the myths spread by the ACME philosophy of training wannabe jet crew is that our single engine piston aircraft have a rotation speed. These aircraft lift off naturally and should not require positive rotation typical of a swept wing jet, only gentle back pressure is required.

Yes and no. It is true for some aircraft (e.g. Cessna 172), less so for other (e.g. PA28). Also, it depends on the amount of runway you have. If you are doing a maximum performance takeoff on a short runway with a PA28 you definitely want a positive rotation.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 07 Feb 11:25
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Incidentally, do you still need the EASA CPL to be paid doing FI work, or can it be just the CPL exams? I know the exams (plus a PPL plus the FI rating) are sufficient to teach ab initio PPL.

No, any FI can be paid for his work even if he holds just a PPL without CPL theory credit. A new FI then is just limited to instruct for the LAPL only. FI who did not needed the CPL theory credit when they got their FI were grandfathered in. But the FI itself is sufficient to be paid for the work.

mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany
124 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top