The instructor/examiner is legally and for insurance reasons also, the PIC, on an instructional or test ride. The student is P/UT or in the case of a test, and she passes, PIS.
Cobalt wrote:
I just found something a bit more definite. FAR Part 23, and the EASA equivalent CS 23, both defineCS 23.673 Primary flight controls: (a) Primary flight controls are those used by the pilot for the immediate control of pitch, roll and yaw.
Brakes are NOT primary flight controls.
Case closed.
Pilot
Cobalt
Biggin Hill
You nailed it. The discussion came up like a little jack in the box. When creating the possibility to do 30 hrs outside of an ATO, it must have been automatically clear to EASA that the aircrafts used wouldn’t have to be 100% compliant with aircraft used for training inside an ATO. That’s the whole point, isn’t it. To save cost, effort and make it easier to comply.
For me the case is indeed closed, now I have to close it for the others as well.
@Robert18C: This is completely acceptable for ab initio training. For someone who is flying and taxiing his own (!!) airplane more than 100hrs per year anyway, it’s a bit rich. I guess this is something made up by the instructor, but without any base in the law for it.
EuroFlyer wrote:
You nailed it
Not necessarily. It will depend on the aircraft.Several aircraft have no direct nose or tail wheel control. The AA-5 for instance. Yaw (on the ground) is controlled by the brakes. The same goes for most tail wheel aircraft, but it’s often a combination of brake and rudder pedals. CS 23 does not say control in the air exclusively.
There must be precedent for this since there are some French made planes which have no RHS brakes and which are used for ab initio PPL training.
The instructor is rather vulnerable…
Well, he is fine with it. The question was rather, whether the ATO overseeing the training would possibly have a legal substance to reject the training hours in my plane because of that. From what I read and hear, this is not the case.
It’s a good idea to have the instructor “test” the RH brakes only for the purpose of him being aware that they are there :)
EuroFlyer wrote:
Well, he is fine with it. The question was rather, whether the ATO overseeing the training would possibly have a legal substance to reject the training hours in my plane because of that.
Why don’t you ask the ATO directly? The ATO couldn’t care less what people hear mean in any case.
Peter wrote:
That’s a funny but good point, since I have been told by an IRE that if I crash the plane after he told me I passed, I still end up with an IR, because the IR test doesn’t include the landing.
No examiner has ever told me I passed any flying test until after the final landing!
Peter wrote:
There must be precedent for this since there are some French made planes which have no RHS brakes and which are used for ab initio PPL training.
I learned to fly in a plane with no brakes on the right side, and me on the left side. The same aircraft did 500 hrs in the summer of 1946, a bit before my time 
but I’m pretty sure I know what they were doing.
Neil wrote:
No examiner has ever told me I passed any flying test until after the final landing!
When I did my initial IR instructor checkride, after the first instrument approcach I asked the examiner what I should ask ATC for the second approach. Standard? Vectors? Whatever? But he said: “No need for another approach, you passed. Just cancel IFR and let me fly us home. I’ll show you how we did that in the F-104…” What followed must have been the most scary 15 minutes in my flying career… I really thought we would hit some of those houses and power lines we passed.
And regarding the initial question: I guess – legality apart – it is finally for the instructor to decide if he accepts to fly without full access to all aircraft controls or not. I would have no problem doing a CB-IR with an experienced aircraft owner without my own brakes. But with an integrated course ATPL student who has maybe 50hours experience when he starts doing his instrument training I would clearly refuse to fly without brakes.
