Click Here to Return to

I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that it’s counter to the regs to permit a non-qualified person (e.g. a right-seater who’s either a not a pilot or who is not qualified in the category/class/type or rated for the flight conditions) to manipulate the flight controls.

14 CFR 61.3 requires a pilot certificate, etc. be held by a person in order to “act as pilot in command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember.”

The right-seater in our example is neither acting as PIC nor acting as a required flight crewmember and therefore requires no certificate, etc. Operation of the flight controls does not make a person a PIC or required pilot flight crewmember.

Per 14 CFR 1.1: “Pilot in command means the person who: (1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight; (2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and (3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.” PIC is a position of responsibility and not a strictly operational designation.

It’s not required that the PIC exclusively operate the flight controls. Otherwise, how would anyone receive flight training in an airplane? The CFI or CFII is the PIC under those circumstances. This is true of both student pilots who hold no certificate at all and in other cases (such as in instrument training in IMC, where the student holds a private certificate but is not rated to file or fly under IFR or in IMC). And before anyone says that the difference is the CFI or CFII on the right seat, I did a quick check and am not aware of any special dispensation accorded flight instruction or otherwise for situations in which one of the persons seated at the flight controls has an instructor certificate.

The underlying principle is that the person with ultimate responsibility for the operation of the aircraft (the PIC) is in place and can reach the flight controls. To say otherwise seems to turn the logic around. A PIC may certainly operate the flight controls and usually does. But operating the flight controls does not make a person PIC. In fact, in airline operations, the captain is designated the PIC, even though he or she may not ever actually touch the flight controls during a given flight.

And “required pilot flight crewmember?” The language here refers to situations where more than one pilot is required to operate the aircraft. Look at 14 CFR 61.58 (“Operation of aircraft requiring more than one pilot flight crewmember”) and other FAR provisions. If you’re flying a Cessna 172, only one pilot flight crewmember is required. If you’re flying a DC-9, you need two type-rated pilots as required flight crewmembers sitting in the two control seats and you can’t have a non-rated person in either of those seats. But remember that operation of the flight controls does not itself make one a required pilot flight crewmember. If you put a non-pilot in the right seat of a DC-3, you’re not necessarily going to get busted for having the groundhog operating the flight controls – It’ll be because the groundhog wasn’t qualified to sit there. A fine point, I admit, but we’re mostly talking about GA aircraft with max gross of 12,500 pounds or less under Part 91 here.

All of this said (1) I make no claim to have the exclusive corner on truth here, (2) please kick me to the curb if I’m wrong (and give cites so we can all learn), (3) this ain’t legal advice and I’m not your lawyer, and (4) it’s probably not a good idea to give the controls to a non-pilot (a) in any but the most benign and predictable phases of flight or (b) under circumstances where the PIC otherwise needs to be flying the airplane. Make the right-seater look for that chart or pour the coffee.

Steve,

I understood and agree with everything after your first sentence. I think we said basically the same thing I'm just not sure what the first sentence means.

Do you agree with Jason's conclusion, (and I hope I get this right) that a non-pilot is not allowed to touch the controls according to his reading of the FAR's?

Or is it legal to allow them?

Ron

Long story short, I think that a non-pilot can take the controls legally as long as (a) the PIC is seated at the other set of controls and (b) the regs permit the aircraft to be flown by one pilot.

The same goes for a pilot-rated occupant of one of the seats when that pilot-rated person is not qualified to operate the aircraft himself (e.g. it's okay if an ASEL with no other ratings takes the controls of a Twin Otter as long as a multi-engine and otherwise qualified PIC is in the other seat and at the controls).

Note that I have skin in the latter of the two cases.

To recap, 61.3 only requires a PIC or required pilot flight crewmember to be certified/rated/etc. A person does not become PIC or a required pilot flight crewmember simply by operating the flight controls. If the person operating the flight controls is not PIC or a required flight crewmember, he doesn't have to be certified/rated/etc.

Steve,

Yeah that's what I said.

Ron

That said, you're the commercial student (and, yes, I'm jealous). Let me know if you hear information to the contrary.

Enjoy, Ron!

- Tup

I agree with the disagreement. My position has to do with the wording Jason described that a non-certificated person cannot operate as one of the "required crew".

As noted, I don't think handing your buddy the controls for a few brief moments of cruise flight makes them "required crew" as you are still clearly PIC and in charge of the aircraft. And in a basic 4-seater, there's no requirement for any other crew on board.

Now, if you told him "fly the plane while I take a nap" then it probably would be illegal (and monumentally dumb, but hey, stupider things have probably happened).

There are many ambiguities all over the FARs but the bureaucrats can't possibly consider every situation, so they leave some things up to our best judgment.

Thanks Steve, hey nothing to be jealous about as your getting the DC-3 type rating eh? Way to go and get the tailwheel done too.

I had a good discussion with Jason yesterday about this while pre-flighting the plane. I think I made a good case for the fact that the pax isn't required even though he is sole manipulator. Anyway stay tuned as Jason was going to look at this again.

Ron

Jason -- In general, I enjoy your podcasts, and I think they're valuable. But I must disagree with your recently stated judgement that it is illegal for a non-pilot passenger to manipulate the controls on a Part 91 flight while the only required certificated pilot sits next to him or her with dual controls.

Non-pilot passengers manipulating controls is forbidden for Part 135 flights: "135.115 Manipulation of controls. No pilot in command may allow any person to manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft during flight conducted under this part, nor may any person manipulate the controls during such flight unless that person is (a) A pilot employed by the certificate holder and qualified in the aircraft; or (b) An authorized safety representative of the Administrator who has the permission of the pilot in command, is qualified in the aircraft, and is checking flight operations." Notice the phrase "under this part."

No such provision exists for Part 91 flights. It would be quite easy for the FAA to include such a provision in Part 91, and they do not. Do you seriously think for one minute they would hesitate to do so if they wanted to?

Second, during the 1996 hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to passage of the Child Pilot Safety Act, FAA Administrator David Hinson stated: "I want to stress that a non-certificated person who may participate in manipulating the controls of an aircraft is not a pilot, but merely a passenger. The experienced, licensed pilot-in-command sitting at the dual controls of that aircraft is the plane's pilot and bears sole responsibility for all aspects of the operation and safety of the aircraft."

You'll notice that he said "is not a pilot...", not "is breaking the law." Furthermore, the statement clearly acknowledges that the practice exists, and nothing in his comments condemns the practice, or even criticizes it.

In short, your collective judgement that the practice of a passenger manipulating the controls of an aircraft under the circumstances specified above (Part 91, dual controls, certificated pilot at the other set of controls) is incorrect, and you should correct it in one of your upcoming podcasts.

Thanks to everybody for the contributions. Although I think we should avoid the CFI / Student example when explaining the point I have been persuaded that my original conclusion was incorrect. The CFI / student example is tricky because the CFI is certified to give dual instruction. On a dual instruction flight both a CFI and a student are required. Not required by the type certificate, I understand, but required for the type of operation being conducted. It opens up a slightly different can of worms. Thanks to all of you and to Ron and Steve. I now agree that the legality of allowing a non pilot passenger is determined by the judgement of the pilot in command and that it is legal to allow a non pilot rated passenger manipulate the flight controls assuming it is done in good judgement. I am posting a correction this evening.

_________________
"To Live is To Fly" - Townes VanZandt
www.thefinerpoints.net
jason@thefinerpoints.net

I had a vested interest in supporting the proposition that a person not fully certificated or rated for a given aircraft could operate the flight controls inasmuch as I posted an episode of my show in January in which I operate the controls of a Twin Otter (of which I am in many ways not qualified to act as PIC). I just hate posting stuff for thousands of people to download that looks good for the other side in an enforcement action with "FAA Exhibit A" stamped on it.

Well, I just posted the audio of the second flight, so you can rest assured that I feel pretty good about the case I made - Or I have a good start on the brief in the hearing! And the discussion here has a lot to do with that. If anyone thinks that I can sit down with the FARs in a vacuum and come up with the definitive answer, they're way too enamored of my legal skills. As with lots of other issues, I go talk to colleagues and other professionals a lot in order to gel my thoughts. Much as any of us like to think that we're experts, we all need the give-and-take that forums like this give us.

Many thanks to the gentleman who posted the info about Part 135 operations. I had not thought to check Part 135. Interesting that they dealt with it there. Sinister as regulators can seem at times, they usually don't go out of their ways to prohibit something that hasn't happened enough times to be an issue. I can just see these poor charter PICs getting harrangued by nutty charter passengers. "C'mon, man! Lemme fly it for awhile. The FO's in the head. Nobody has to know! Hey! What does this thing do?"

Maybe it's because, under Part 91, the FO doesn't go visit the head that often. At least not in the C-172s that I fly. (Reguires a lot of nose-down trim, that does . . .)

Huzzah for Jason Miller for hosting such a great forum and show where we can hash out this stuff and learn - er - the finer points!

- Tup

Roger That!

_________________
Everyone must believe in something, I believe that I will go flying.

I am still working my way through the episodes and just got to 102??? where this was brought up. Since this already got beaten to death, I will refrain from adding my $.02 to the discussion since Steve and Ron, et al have already made my point.

Having said that, what can of worms is opened by this? I don't understand why BOTH the CFI and student are required. I am not sure what the point to the statement is.

Greg,

Welcome and thanks for posting.

This came from a CFI meeting at the club where Jason instructs if I remember correctly.

I'll defer to Jason as to why this came up, but the discussion here got started after he said that the it was illegal to let anyone who wasn't a rated pilot operate the controls as I think it was said in the podcast.

Ron