Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Piper Malibu PA46 N757NY down in Goose Bay

boscomantico wrote:

And as you know, in private, non-training SEP ops, there is no multi-crew flying. The one who isn‘t PIC (even if he has tons of licenses and ratings) is a passenger. Full stop.

I strenuously disagree. Part-NCO explicitly makes provisions for multiple crew members, and the GM explicitly handles the case of non-PIC crew members, and not only for training. As PIC, I can make a person (holding a Part-FCL flight crew licence or not) in charge of helping spot other airplanes and birds, taking my sandwich off my hands when I need to grab the controls, radio communications, giving me an epinephrine shot when my asthma plays up, administering allergy medication if a wasp stings me, etc. I can make a person in charge of airspace avoidance, navigation, terrain avoidance, … I’d say I can even make a person responsible for manipulating the controls, as long as the conditions below are fulfilled.

These are all crew positions.

If the objective of the flight is sightseeing, then a touristic guide can be crew. If the objective is wildlife spotting, then a wildlife specialist can be crew.

DESIGNATION OF PERSONS AS CREW MEMBERS

(a) The operator may designate any person as a crew member (including a task specialist) provided that:
(1) the role, according to the reasonable expectation of the operator, will enhance the safety of the flight or achieve an operational objective of the flight;
(2) the person, according to the reasonable expectation of the operator, is capable of fulfilling the role;
(3) the person has been briefed on the role as a crew member and informed that they are crew, not a passenger; and
(4) the person agrees to the role as a crew member.
(b) Crew members are not considered to be passengers.
(c) Crew members may be required, by specific provisions of this Regulation and other Implementing Rules, to hold licences, ratings or other personnel certificates to fulfil certain roles such as instructor, examiner or flight engineer in certain circumstances.

ELLX

JasonC wrote:

This was a pilot paid to fly with the deceased pilot to help him make the crossing. It wasn’t two mates flying together. He will certainly be sued by the pilot’s estate.

Why is that certain? If I were killed in this circumstance there would not be not be a lawsuit, my heirs would know I’d taken a calculated risk and that risk had been realized. This fellow’s still operating company surely makes money with or without him and I imagine he had some kind of succession plan at his age, if he was still actively involved. In this case I don’t see the drama that would lead to heirs trying to take somebody else’s money for no particular reason and without clear cause.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 09 Jul 04:33

@lionel

Ahh… that bit in the GM to NCO… I almost forgot…
That would be in contradiction with Part-FCL, since Part-FCL does not designate any “role” at all for a second pilot in that scenario.
I would still be interested in @bookworm s opinion here, on what they thought when this bit of the GM to Part-NCO was written…. please don’t let the reply be that whilst that other pilot can be pilot, he cannot log the hours, because that would be contravening a very basic principle of Part-FCL.
I rather guess the idea was to include the possibility to have non-pilot crew members (as you said, to have people assigned to things like spotting wildfires, etc.). But that is not the case here.
So, in case you want take this bit of GM to NCO into account, then let me rephrase it and say: in private, non-training SEP ops, there is no multi-pilot flying.

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

boscomantico wrote:

on what they thought when this bit of the GM to Part-NCO was written

I think I read somewhere in the depths of EASA that it is for specialized operations.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/air-operations/specialised-operations-spo

always learning
LO__, Austria

boscomantico wrote:

in private, non-training SEP ops, there is no multi-pilot flying.

Fully agree.

Then again:
An aviation insurance from germany quoted me that: for accident/life insurance covering flying, while I am aboard as a passenger (and someone else is PIC), just the fact that I have a license, will preclude them from paying in case of. The reasoning was that, from an insurance point of view, I will be counted as a pilot, and not a passenger. Especially if contributing to the flight in any way (pushing a knob, handling a radio call etc..).
Take this insurance opinion for what it’s worth.

I can relate to a judge that would see it similarly. „So you got paid to act as a ferry/safety/mentor pilot…“.

This is a very interesting and important discussion. Keen on your views!

always learning
LO__, Austria

Snoopy wrote:

This is a very interesting and important discussion. Keen on your views!

Yes it is complicated. It is one thing to be a pilot along for the ride. A different thing if you are paid to be there in my view.

EGTK Oxford

Snoopy wrote:

for accident/life insurance covering flying, while I am aboard as a passenger (and someone else is PIC), just the fact that I have a license, will preclude them from paying in case of.

Now that is interesting.So I am a pilot, have a license and sit in 34 A in an airliner which decides to be lost. And on the ground that I have a license, they would not pay?

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

On Flyer forum it is asserted that Rutherford was in the left seat, and was listed as PIC in the flightplan. He was also paid for ferrying the plane. According to the FAA database he only has a third class medical which is not sufficient to use commercial privileges.

Interesting.

Last Edited by JasonC at 11 Jul 09:03
EGTK Oxford

Be careful. Just because one (largely unmoderated, unless something really blows up) site posts something doesn’t mean that a person (who is alive) can’t sue. Does the poster there have access to SR’s bank account? I don’t think so…

Also somebody can be a 61.75 holder and fly on an EASA medical.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Also somebody can be a 61.75 holder and fly on an EASA medical.

Not commercially in an N reg plane.

EGTK Oxford
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top