Private Pilot letting a unlicensed person fly

Ron Levy said:
Really? Have you thought that through where two-crew aircraft are involved?
Click to expand...

If you don't have a list of aircraft where a non-licensed pilot would stand a high probability of being in a control seat, just say so.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Interesting, so if I buy one of these prior to getting my private I cannot engage the autopilot while getting instruction. Thanks, lawyers.
Click to expand...

You also can't take your seat belt off while the autopilot is engaged!
 
EdFred said:
Except in that case you aren't a safety pilot - because it's not simulated instrument flight. Not going in the logbook as such, it's not happening. Just like the "giving instruction" premise of the thread. You're still the only pilot on board, no medical required as Sport Pilot. As a safety pilot, you're are actually a "backup" pilot. Since the non-pilot isn't a pilot, who are you backing up? Exactly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is my feeling on it also. The "un..." is a non-entity as far as the regs are concerned (except as a pax, of course).
 
EdFred said:
Interesting, so if I buy one of these prior to getting my private I cannot engage the autopilot while getting instruction. Thanks, lawyers.
Click to expand...

Student pilot is a pilot for this purpose. You just can't strap a piece of luggage or a kid in a car-seat into the left seat even though it may be more convenient.
 
weilke said:
Student pilot is a pilot for this purpose. You just can't strap a piece of luggage or a kid in a car-seat into the left seat even though it may be more convenient.
Click to expand...

If I don't have a medical (or student cert) yet, I'm not a student pilot.
 
EdFred said:
Except in that case you aren't a safety pilot - because it's not simulated instrument flight. Not going in the logbook as such, it's not happening. Just like the "giving instruction" premise of the thread. You're still the only pilot on board, no medical required as Sport Pilot.
Click to expand...

91.109(c) doesn't say "No pilot may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight" without a safety pilot; it says "No person."

What is allowed to be logged is irrelevant, because if a certificated pilot flies under the hood and decides not to log it, 91.109(c) has still been violated.

As a safety pilot, you're are actually a "backup" pilot. Since the non-pilot isn't a pilot, who are you backing up? Exactly
Click to expand...

You're backing up the non-pilot at the controls.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
91.109(c) doesn't say "No pilot may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight" without a safety pilot; it says "No person."

What is allowed to be logged is irrelevant, because if a certificated pilot flies under the hood and decides not to log it, 91.109(c) has still been violated.



You're backing up the non-pilot at the controls.
Click to expand...

And such proof of alleged violation to be found where? Even so, the non-pilot isn't operating the aircraft, the pilot is. You aren't backing anyone up, you're the only pilot on board.

If it's not even able to be logged, the situation doesn't legally exist. Just like giving instruction as a non CFI - you aren't giving any instruction by the regulations. Since the non-pilot can't even legally log the hood time, it isn't legally happening. Which is different from choosing not to log it. No 91.109 bust. Feel free to write the Chief Counsel on it if you disagree with me. Really, go ahead. I'm sure everyone here will thank you.

So there's the options. Defer to my judgement, or get the Chief Counsel involved. ;)
 
Last edited:
brien23 said:
How about the commercial jet flight that the pilot let his 15 year old son fly the jet while the first officer went to the bathroom. Does that count.
Click to expand...

Not quite the story. The pilot wasn't in the bathroom but in the cockpit. They were rotating kids into the left seat with the autopilot on. The son managed to apply force enough to the yoke long enough to cause the autopilot to partial turn off (roll control disabled while the rest continued) and neither the first officer (who was in his seat) nor the captain notice the autopilot had been partially disengaged. After noticing that something was not right they failed to correct the matter before the aircraft rolled beyond the point of recovery. Further discovered if they hadn't fought it through the sequence the autopilot would have gone into "trained monkey mode" and avoided the resulting stall.
 
jpower said:
What if a licensed pilot flies PIC in the right seat but a post-solo student sits in the left seat and does all the flying? Are there limitations on where the PIC can sit?
Click to expand...

not unless the insurance company or rental agreement requires you to be in the left seat . . . . most rental agreements that have been vetted by lawyers and insurance companies now do . . .
 
From Seattle FSDO "Chip Peterson" 800-354-1940 "a private pilot can not let anyone not a licenced pilot fly the aircraft" . This includes EAA young eagles and CAP orientation Flights with Private pilots license as PIC.
 
brien23 said:
From Seattle FSDO "Chip Peterson" 800-354-1940 "a private pilot can not let anyone not a licenced pilot fly the aircraft" . This includes EAA young eagles and CAP orientation Flights with Private pilots license as PIC.
Click to expand...

Can a commercial pilot? Or an ATP? According to Chip no one can fly an aircraft. None of us domestics are licensed...

Chip Peterson must share DNA or a bed with Rebecca Macpherson. Let's hope those two idiots don't reproduce.
 
Last edited:
brien23 said:
From Seattle FSDO "Chip Peterson" 800-354-1940 "a private pilot can not let anyone not a licenced pilot fly the aircraft" . This includes EAA young eagles and CAP orientation Flights with Private pilots license as PIC.
Click to expand...

What's in the FARs that backs his opinion?:confused: In the Aussie rules it's clearly spelled out.
 
brien23 said:
From Seattle FSDO "Chip Peterson" 800-354-1940 "a private pilot can not let anyone not a licenced pilot fly the aircraft" . This includes EAA young eagles and CAP orientation Flights with Private pilots license as PIC.
Click to expand...

Please provide the relevant FAR chapter and verse. I had a cop tell me I couldn't land there. When I asked him if he was law enforcement he said something like; 'you bet your *** I am, and you can't land here'. So, I asked him which "law" he was enforcing, and to please find it for me in the muni, county, state, or federal laws rules or regulations. Of course, he couldn't find one. Since it was private property(of course) I asked him to leave now.
 
docmirror said:
Please provide the relevant FAR chapter and verse. I had a cop tell me I couldn't land there. When I asked him if he was law enforcement he said something like; 'you bet your *** I am, and you can't land here'. So, I asked him which "law" he was enforcing, and to please find it for me in the muni, county, state, or federal laws rules or regulations. Of course, he couldn't find one. Since it was private property(of course) I asked him to leave now.
Click to expand...
You might call him the phone number is listed above and try to get something other than his interpretation of part 91.
 
EdFred said:
And such proof of alleged violation to be found where?
Click to expand...

In the plain language of the regulations.

Even so, the non-pilot isn't operating the aircraft, the pilot is.
Click to expand...

The definition of "operate" in 1.1 is not that narrow.

"Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in §91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise)."​

If there were no certificated pilot on board, would you claim that no one was operating the aircraft, for the purposes of 91.109(c)?

You aren't backing anyone up, you're the only pilot on board.
Click to expand...

91.109(c) doesn't say anything about backing anyone up. That concept is your own invention.

If it's not even able to be logged, the situation doesn't legally exist.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that a non-pilot can't log the time? 61.51(g) uses the word "person," not "pilot."

Just like giving instruction as a non CFI - you aren't giving any instruction by the regulations.
Click to expand...

The regulations don't say that no instruction is being given; they only place restrictions on what can be logged as instruction.

Since the non-pilot can't even legally log the hood time, it isn't legally happening.
Click to expand...

What regulation prohibits the non-pilot from logging the hood time?

Which is different from choosing not to log it. No 91.109 bust. Feel free to write the Chief Counsel on it if you disagree with me. Really, go ahead. I'm sure everyone here will thank you.

So there's the options. Defer to my judgement, or get the Chief Counsel involved. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm happy to defer to the plain language of the regulations. Your options are to do the same, or try to get the Chief Counsel to agree with you! ;);)
 
Last edited:
In the plain language of the regulations.



The definition of "operate" in 1.1 is not that narrow.
"Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in §91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise)."​
If there were no certificated pilot on board, would you claim that no one was operating the aircraft, for the purposes of 91.109(c)?

Yes, as Kramer would say that plane was "outta control!" Who is using the aircraft or authorizing it? Assuming it's not a joyride or stolen - the pilot is authorizing the operation. The non-pilot is a carbon based autopilot, the pilot is the operator.

91.109(c) doesn't say anything about backing anyone up. That concept is your own invention.

Really, so you can be the only person in the plane, and be a safety pilot? Look at all the other common uses of safety. Safety line, safety cutoff, etc...all operate as a backup, not as a primary. As the only pilot, you aren't a safety pilot. Ergo 91.109 isn't applicable.


What makes you think that a non-pilot can't log the time? 61.51(g) uses the word "person," not "pilot."

What would the non-pilot (legally) log it as? Non-pilot, no instruction given, there is nothing to log.

The regulations don't say that no instruction is being given; they only place restrictions of what can be logged as instruction.

I was drawing a parallel. If the logged instruction isn't legal/doesn't exist happens, because there is no CFI, the safety pilot doesn't exist, because there is no pilot to be a safety pilot to.

What regulation prohibits the non-pilot from logging the hood time?

See my previous comment as what he would log it as.

I'm happy to defer to the plain language of the regulations. Your options are to do the same, or try to get the Chief Counsel to agree with you! ;);)

I assert your interpretations are incorrect.
 
brien23 said:
From Seattle FSDO "Chip Peterson" 800-354-1940 "a private pilot can not let anyone not a licenced pilot fly the aircraft" . This includes EAA young eagles and CAP orientation Flights with Private pilots license as PIC.
Click to expand...

FSDO opinions are like *******s, everyone has one.

If it ain't in writing, it never happened.
 
Jeezus people every time you don't let a nonpilot fly an angel dies. Stop killing angels goshdammit.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Jeezus people every time you don't let a nonpilot fly an angel dies. Stop killing angels goshdammit.
Click to expand...

Don't look at me, Richard and Geoff are the ones saying no. ;) Anyone who climbs in my plane that isn't a Lifeline Passenger has been offered the chance to fly.
 
How do you get a ruling from the Faa Chief Counsel on this.
 
brien23 said:
How do you get a ruling from the Faa Chief Counsel on this.
Click to expand...

YOU DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Do not write them any questions that could in any way possibly further restrict what we can or cannot do in an airplane.
 
EdFred said:
Don't look at me, Richard and Geoff are the ones saying no. ;) Anyone who climbs in my plane that isn't a Lifeline Passenger has been offered the chance to fly.
Click to expand...

HEY!!!!!!
Anyone who rides with me rides at a control station. And I always let them drive. But not with a hood. ;)
 
EdFred said:
YOU DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Do not write them any questions that could in any way possibly further restrict what we can or cannot do in an airplane.
Click to expand...

Amen to that!
 
EdFred said:
Don't look at me, Richard and Geoff are the ones saying no. ;) Anyone who climbs in my plane that isn't a Lifeline Passenger has been offered the chance to fly.
Click to expand...

I let people fly too. And since I have private pilot privileges, I even let them do it under the hood if they want!
 
EdFred said:
Yes, as Kramer would say that plane was "outta control!" Who is using the aircraft or authorizing it? Assuming it's not a joyride or stolen - the pilot is authorizing the operation. The non-pilot is a carbon based autopilot, the pilot is the operator.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but notice that the 1.1 definition has an "or" in there. It doesn't say "using AND authorizing," it says "using OR authorizing." So under the wording of the definition, either one, using, or authorizing the use, of the aircraft is sufficient by itself to be considered operating it.

Really, so you can be the only person in the plane, and be a safety pilot?
Click to expand...

That doesn't follow from what I said.

Look at all the other common uses of safety. Safety line, safety cutoff, etc...all operate as a backup, not as a primary. As the only pilot, you aren't a safety pilot. Ergo 91.109 isn't applicable.
Click to expand...

Good luck using that weak plausibility argument in front of an administrative law judge.

What would the non-pilot (legally) log it as? Non-pilot, no instruction given, there is nothing to log.
Click to expand...

You keep ignoring the fact that the logging regulations use the word "person," not "pilot." Based on 61.51, it looks to me like the non-pilot person could log the flight time during which he was operating the controls (i.e., using the aircraft), and the simulated instrument time during which he was operating the controls under the hood.

I was drawing a parallel. If the logged instruction isn't legal/doesn't exist happens, because there is no CFI, the safety pilot doesn't exist, because there is no pilot to be a safety pilot to.
Click to expand...

As with the logging regulation, you are ignoring the fact that it says that a "person" must have a safety pilot. It doesn't say that the person must be a pilot in order for that requirement to apply.

I assert your interpretations are incorrect.
Click to expand...

Well, we each have our opinions.

But don't worry: If you let your medical and CFI certificates lapse, start exercising the privileges of a sport pilot certificate, and let a non-pilot passenger fly the plane while under the hood, I won't turn you in!
 
Last edited:
Their seems to be more than a few who see nothing wrong with letting someone unlicensed fly a aircraft while they Private pilot certificate PIC sit back and ride along. Their are age requirements and student pilot certificates required to become a pilot. Those same people I would suspect would never let someone unlicensed or without a learners permit behind the wheel of their car and let them drive them around. The original post was Legal or Not I suspect just about everyone has let someone not licensed fly for a while to try it legal or not.
 
brien23 said:
Their seems to be more than a few who see nothing wrong with letting someone unlicensed fly a aircraft while they Private pilot certificate PIC sit back and ride along. Their are age requirements and student pilot certificates required to become a pilot. Those same people I would suspect would never let someone unlicensed or without a learners permit behind the wheel of their car and let them drive them around. The original post was Legal or Not I suspect just about everyone has let someone not licensed fly for a while to try it legal or not.
Click to expand...
I think the original question was answered very early on -- it is completely legal for a Private Pilot to let an unlicensed person manipulate the controls on a private, non-commercial flight in a light airplane of which s/he is legally acting as PIC. Of course, some people chose to use this as a platform to complain about some rules they don't like, but their posts weren't relevant to the original question. In addition, there are some safety issues to be considered, but again, that's not relevant to the original question about the legality.

Bottom line: Yes, it's legal to do what the OP asked about as long as no money's changing hands and everyone understands it's not really flight training.
 
Last edited:
brien23 said:
Their seems to be more than a few who see nothing wrong with letting someone unlicensed fly a aircraft while they Private pilot certificate PIC sit back and ride along. Their are age requirements and student pilot certificates required to become a pilot. Those same people I would suspect would never let someone unlicensed or without a learners permit behind the wheel of their car and let them drive them around. The original post was Legal or Not I suspect just about everyone has let someone not licensed fly for a while to try it legal or not.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, I'll let pretty much anyone fly, but I'm at a control seat.
 
Ron Levy said:
I think the original question was answered very early on -- it is completely legal for a Private Pilot to let an unlicensed person manipulate the controls on a private, non-commercial flight in a light airplane of which s/he is legally acting as PIC. Of course, some people chose to use this as a platform to complain about some rules they don't like, but their posts weren't relevant to the original question. In addition, there are some safety issues to be considered, but again, that's not relevant to the original question about the legality.

Bottom line: Yes, it's legal to do what the OP asked about as long as no money's changing hands and everyone understands it's not really flight training.
Click to expand...
Did you miss the post about Seattle FSDO view that it is not legal.
 
JeffDG said:
FSDO opinions are like *******s, everyone has one.

If it ain't in writing, it never happened.
Click to expand...

I've tried to make this point many times. If the Inspector believes this he needs to put it in writing on a FAA letterhead and sign it, or have an email from his email address.

"I was told" doesn't hold water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top