Student pilot and PPL
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rep of Ireland
Age: 62
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Student pilot and PPL
Is it legal for a student pilot to be in the LHS and flying the aircraft with a PPL in the RHS? I know that the student can't log the hours.
Assume that the a/c is privately owned by the student. Any references would be helpful.
Assume that the a/c is privately owned by the student. Any references would be helpful.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying from the RHS is a little different. If the club/owner/school doesn't insist on a RHS checkout (like mine does) it's a good idea to do a few touch and gos from the RHS, with an experienced PPL (or instructor) in the LHS.
The other can of worms is indeed payment. The P1/PPL has to pay at least an equal share of the direct costs of the flight, or it starts to become "aerial work". In the case of the student owning the airplane, but legally just being a passenger along for the ride, I guess the student can invite two other pax, and pay the share for those pax as well. Nothing illegal in that. So then the P1/PPL only pays 1/4 of the direct costs.
The other can of worms is indeed payment. The P1/PPL has to pay at least an equal share of the direct costs of the flight, or it starts to become "aerial work". In the case of the student owning the airplane, but legally just being a passenger along for the ride, I guess the student can invite two other pax, and pay the share for those pax as well. Nothing illegal in that. So then the P1/PPL only pays 1/4 of the direct costs.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perfectly legal for a PPL to be P1 in the RHS. Insurance, payment, benefit in kind issues public/private cat issues etc are the usual entirely separate can of worms.
There is no legal reason I'm aware of why the pilot in command canot sit in either seat (unless the POH specifies something else - a Tiger Moth might be a good example of this?) but I have no idea what position the insurance company might take if there was an incident.
Try running it by your insurance company?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other can of worms is indeed payment. The P1/PPL has to pay at least an equal share of the direct costs of the flight, or it starts to become "aerial work". In the case of the student owning the airplane, but legally just being a passenger along for the ride, I guess the student can invite two other pax, and pay the share for those pax as well. Nothing illegal in that. So then the P1/PPL only pays 1/4 of the direct costs.
You may find that the POH or insurance insists that P1 is in the left seat and students are P1 in the left seat but u/t is the get out for the instructor in the RHS:-)
I've never heard of an insurance company insisting the P1 sits in the left seat (unless the POH requires it for some reason). Most people who go on about insurance requirements, have never read their insurance policy.
I suppose a good way of looking at this is why would you want an SPL in the left seat, and a PPL in the right seat? The only good reason I can think of is to help the SPL get more left hand seat experience while flying, which seems to be illegal training by a non instructor. Like most of these things, you will get away with it if nothing goes wrong. But if something goes wrong, everyones assumption will be that there was illegal training going on, and you'll have to be able to defend yourself pretty convincingly, which mightn't be so easy to do.
dp
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dublinpilot,
You are 50% correct.
There is no restriction on cost sharing in Ireland. Thus you can have an 8 seater and share the cost 8 ways within a club environment.
AS to illegal instruction there you are correct. The only reason for a passenger to occupy a pilot seat is to perform some pilot function. A PPL in the right seat and a student in the left it would be hard to convince anyone that the pilot simple sat their passenger in the left seat for convenience and that there was no element of instruction. Especially after a landing accident when under oath the pilot is asked who was manipulating the controls during the landing?
In the UK, if you let a passenger have a go then by definition if they are not qualified there is some element of instruction. That makes it aerial work. Provied that there is no payment at all for the aerial work i.e. the PPL pays the full costs then there would not be any case to answer as it would be hard to prove that the student gained a benifit from the "training" even if it did shorten or prevent an over-run in their dual time to solo or to skill test.
In simple terms, the pilot in command sits in the pilot seat and passengers sit in the others. If a pilot uses a passenger seat while seating a passenger in the pilot seat and then has an accident / incident, everyone is going to ask why were they not in their seat?
Finally, letting someone have a go for a while in the cruise at a safe height is one thing, letting them land or take-off is something that instructors are trained to supervise and react to and somthing that takes practice to do properly. Not for the basic ppl hoping to have a safe flight.
Regards,
DFC
You are 50% correct.
There is no restriction on cost sharing in Ireland. Thus you can have an 8 seater and share the cost 8 ways within a club environment.
AS to illegal instruction there you are correct. The only reason for a passenger to occupy a pilot seat is to perform some pilot function. A PPL in the right seat and a student in the left it would be hard to convince anyone that the pilot simple sat their passenger in the left seat for convenience and that there was no element of instruction. Especially after a landing accident when under oath the pilot is asked who was manipulating the controls during the landing?
In the UK, if you let a passenger have a go then by definition if they are not qualified there is some element of instruction. That makes it aerial work. Provied that there is no payment at all for the aerial work i.e. the PPL pays the full costs then there would not be any case to answer as it would be hard to prove that the student gained a benifit from the "training" even if it did shorten or prevent an over-run in their dual time to solo or to skill test.
In simple terms, the pilot in command sits in the pilot seat and passengers sit in the others. If a pilot uses a passenger seat while seating a passenger in the pilot seat and then has an accident / incident, everyone is going to ask why were they not in their seat?
Finally, letting someone have a go for a while in the cruise at a safe height is one thing, letting them land or take-off is something that instructors are trained to supervise and react to and somthing that takes practice to do properly. Not for the basic ppl hoping to have a safe flight.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no such thing as an individual "pilot seat" in an aircraft with two front seats both fitted with a full set of flight controls. It is perfectly legal for a PPL to fly from the right hand seat if he wishes, and to put his passenger ( student or otherwise) in the left seat.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no such thing as an individual "pilot seat" in an aircraft with two front seats both fitted with a full set of flight controls. It is perfectly legal for a PPL to fly from the right hand seat if he wishes, and to put his passenger ( student or otherwise) in the left seat
Please have a look at the certification regulations concerning the positioning of the primary flight instruments etc with regard to the line of sight of the pilot while sitting at the controls and looking forward.
If it is something small with the instruments mounted centrally then you might have some hope but on the average PA28 or C172, the prossicution will ask you why do you think that the manufacturer clustered all the instruments switches etc on the left side of the aircraft? Would it be to conform with the requirements for these to be in the line of sight of the pilot and within easy reach? Can't be for lateral balance now can it?
Most light aircraft have a dual control column and pedals on the right because these are the minimum for dual instruction and for simulated IMC flight. Many don't have brakes on the right.
Like I said, you would find it hard to convince anyone that you simply sat your passenger in the left seat for comfort...........was it comfortable for you to be looking way over there for the airspeed?
The CAA issued guidance to RTF and FTOs regarding checking out FIs in the right seat and ensuring that they were competent from that seat following a tragic accident at Bournemouth during a trial lesson. Are you above all that?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I thought we were talking legalities only here. I'm not altogether sure why the CAA would advise checking out instructors for their competence in flying from the right seat when they have presumably undertaken and passed a full FI course sitting in the right seat. There is no dispute whatsoever about the important and potentially dangerous differences between flying from the right seat and the left, and I would not condone flying from the right without, as it were, "differences" training . I don't reckon I would be much good at driving if someone suddenly put my car clutch pedal on the right, any more than a pilot with no previous flying experience in the right seat could cope with a reversal between stick and throttle when landing. But then on the other hand there are aircraft with dual throttles ( strangely, usually on the left not the right !) and my instrument and night instructors all managed to take off, fly perfectly well in IMC, and land from the right seat by bending their heads over to the left to look at the instruments , and then of course there are those many aircraft which have full panel both sides.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA issued guidance to RTF and FTOs
An aircraft fitted with dual flying controls can be flown P1 legally from either side.
Where the instruments are sighted is the not the criteria, it is whether they can be seen from both pilots position.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
strangely, usually on the left not the right
Many military piston trainers are modified so that the pilot in command (student when dual) sits on the right thus using left hand for engine controls. The instructor sitting on the left uses the extra throttle provided to their left.
Those that are not so modified, the pilot in the left seat still has a throttle on their left.
You need to look at the certification standards with regard to positioning of instruments.
Guidance is not LAW,
Insurance companies might think that they pose an unacceptable risk.
Regards,
DFC
