skippydiesel

More attack, with no attempt to analyse. This has always been the strategy of the closed minded - The joke, my friend is on you😈

So! In short you cant fault the logic of my statement, exploring the logic or lack of, in the current practise, PIC & student. Is that what the tennis people call Game Set & Match? On the RAA - did you not see where I wrote of my conversation , on this matter, with no less than two RAA officials - not so supportive of your wild assertions.😈

Go on , lets see you logically take apart my statement (above)😈

Laugh all you wish BrendAn - the joke remains with you until you put up or shut up😈

Why don't you try and attack my logic or are insults all you are capable of ? 😈

I have had a further thought or two about the word Command. In General It is possible to be In Command of a vessel/aircraft/ machine however you can not Command (verb) a non sentient object ie you can not Command a machine, your utterances will have no disenable effect. Command infers authority to control humans or other beings eg a working dog, by the use of words (verbal or writen). In Aviation A Pilot In Command (PIC) implies a great deal more than mechanical control (as in manipulate the machine so as to achieve flight). The PIC has legal standing & responsibility, must by convention & I suggest, law, be licenced ie not a student . It is tempting to think of a solo (unlicensed/student) pilot as PIC, as they are the only person on board, so must if circumstances (safety of aircraft) dictate, make authoritative decisions. However this is to ignore the role of the students Instructor, who is in fact the only Commander (PIC) in this relationship/situation. Note; The Instructor need not be in the aircraft to maintain this relationship. By law & convention, there can not be two PICs for the same aircraft/time, ergo the student can never be PIC. CASA/RAA/FAAA and any other authority that uses the words Pilot In Command for an unlicensed pilot, are simple incorrect, inconsistent with other aviation rules, regulations & custom. Their intentions may be known/understood, even supported however the terminology does not accurately reflect the situation, that the student is under the Command of the Instructor. Just because a bureaucracy (staffed by fallible humans) draws up a regulation, this does not mean it is necessarily worded well (grey areas), correct (wrong) or consistent with (supports/contradicts) other regulations. Those who blindly refer to/quote the regulations, without critical thought, undermine democracy and ultimately the rule of law.😈

Is it my imagination or has there realy been a marked reduction in the number of fly-in's this year? I much prefer the informality & comradery of fly-in's to air shows. Clifton, Qld, is coming up but seems to have reduced to a one day event - hard to justify a long flight for one day. After Clifton - nothing on the horizon that I know of. 😈

Aro - Friend you are just wrong about almost every point. Pilot In Command is not just some way of saying a person is flying an aircraft - it has legal meaning, ramifications and authority. Check into it before you respond. 😈

I fly from the Sydney Basin. When I first used SE2 I could not believe the numbed of aircraft that were in my vicinity. OzRunways on its own, only showed other OzRunways carrying aircarft. I now get almost all aircraft - much safer. Must still use the Mk1 eyeball but now know where in space to look. Annoyances: The suction mounting seems to pick the worst times to drop the whole shebang. I get an annoying "tick" in my headset . Comes and goes depending orientation of head to SE2 . I follow the recommended charging regime - at home. I would much rather charge from the aircraft power. I highly recomend this little white box 😈

😈

I beg to differ (of course). In your scenario; The matter has been discussed by the Instructor & Student, a possibly satisfactory course of action arrived at. I do agree that the Student has had significant input - as he/she should. They have never been expected to slavishly adhere to the Instructions. In fact to do so would be counter to the ultimate aim of the Instructor, that is to deliver a new hatched autonomous licensed pilot. In time, the student, now a licensed pilot will not be required to consult with the Instructor (PIC). The fact remains the Instructor is PIC & there can not be two PIC's. That the Instructor is not physically in the aircraft is not relevant, except to say that the student is on a journey of increasing independence. As the journey/training progresses, so the confidence of the Instructor, in the students capacity to make appropriate decisions increases. When judged up to it, the student will be first released into the training area. In time will go on a solo X country - clearly they are close to achieving their unrestricted pilots license/certificate and decisions made at this time will have near the weight of a qualified pilot. Should there be an incident, the standard achieved by the student & the circumstances (eg was the student following the agreed flight plan), will of course mitigate the blame levelled at the Instructor. Once qualified the new pilot may become PIC in the FULL sense/meaning of the word, within the aviation context. Carrying your scenario a little further; Who would be to blame if the the Instructor said "Land AS Instructed" and the student refused. Later crashing due to fuel exhaustion, weather, etc? The answer my friend is simple - The Instructor would carry by the far the greater proportion of the blame. Why? because legally & culturally the Instructor is the responsible entity in this relationship. Again this makes the instructor PIC. "Pilot in Command (PIC) For RAAus student and pilot purposes: the person in control of the aircraft when not in the company of an Instructor and referred to as solo flight time" These are the words and I believe they are wrong and should be changed to reflect the true situaton, which is student pilot in control, under the direction of the Instructor who remains PIC at all times 😈

As I said - read what has been writen earlier - I have made my position on this clear. Its not about "fair" - Its about legality, custom and rational behaviour - read the earlier posts.😈

😈

Now I understand; From the the original question/statement by BrendAn, I understood that the student is being required to sign a Flight School document, agreeing to pay the excess component, of any insurance claim, that may be made as a consequence of their use of a training aircraft. I am unaware of the student taking out their own insurance , other than what they get as a pilot member of RAA. IF the Flight School is doing this - its an agreement with the school - not the insurance company. I suggests you read the various posts that precede yours. It may save you going over points already explored. Should you wish to continue, after doing this, I will be happy to debate further😈

I am not sure what you are saying here. Perhaps you can rephrase. 😈

Hi aro, There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "command". In the context of person flying an aircraft they are certainly controlling the vehicle but unless they are Pilot In Command they are not commanding it. eg When two, or more, qualified pilots are on the flight deck, one will be PIC the other(s) will be subordinate. In some situations this may be changed by agreement. In the scenario I posed above, I should not have used the word "can". - Of course, without the on board presence of the Instructor, they can do as they wish. The word I should have used is should or permissible. As RAA stated - its a grey area. In my view (clearly at odds with CASA) the student is in control , not Command. The student is still very much under the supervision of a higher authority, the Instructor, so the word Command which has connotations of leadership, independent decision making, ultimate responsibility, etc etc is incorrect, when applied to a student. The student remains very much under the Command of the Instructor even though control has been relaxed to facilitate further learning & experince. Stepping away from aviation for a moment - The Commander in Chief is the ultimate authority in that military group. There will be sub Commanders responsible for smaller groups - a cadet /student is at the very bottom of the organisational/responsibility structure. They may practise Command activates (go solo) and may on graduating to Command a small section but as a learner never Command in reality. PIC is analogous to the marine Captain - not all who control a boat are Captain. Back to aviation - CASA has been inconsistent with its use of PIC (muddying the waters) however as RAA pointed out, the ruling allowing command time to be logged, is limited to the student context.😈

Once a topic has been "floated" on the Forum, the author (you in this instance) has no control of the debate, - protest all you will it wont change a thing. I commend your raising this topic however it has evolved to include the question;, why on earth would any flight school go down this doubtfully enforceable, possibly illegal and definitely unethical rout.😈

BrebdAn BrendAn - You just cant stand having your position challenged. It reads like you are having a tantrum tusk tusk If you don't want to continue, say nothing, rather than something that borders on the offensive 😈

While there is often a close relationship, quoting FAA regulations can only be viewed by a pilot in Australian, as "muddying the waters " Any comment on my chat with RAA staff? 😈

No mention of the susceptibility of unpressurised aircraft to adverse weather. In particular the discomfort of passengers in the air and delayed on the ground. Might have been omitted for the film but saw no effort to meet W & B😈

Hi BrenDon, This debate , from insurance excess to Pilot In Command, has intrigued and even troubled me somewhat. I have taken the step to move from just BSing my way through the debate (using logic as I understand it) to consulting with RAA's. You will be pleased to hear that they confirm The RAA's Operations Manual "Pilot in Command (PIC) For RAAus student and pilot purposes: the person in control of the aircraft when not in the company of an Instructor and referred to as solo flight time" When asked, with reference to the above; does this authorise the student to exercise the privileges & responsibilities of a PIC, the answer was much less certain. It seem that the words "...not in the company of an Instructor and referred to as solo flight time" is the qualifying/limiting instruction. This is merely so the student can log the flight time as PIC. RAA agreed its a grey area, that the student is not PIC in the same sense as a licensed/certified pilot may be PIC. The problem is the word Command - they agree that control might be a better/more accurate descriptive word for what the student is doing, however the terminology comes from /approved by CASA - who wants to go there? As for the flight school that requires students to sign an agreement to pay insurance excess, on damages done to/by an aircraft under their control - RAA agrees with me. This is unacceptable. RAA wishes for any flight school conducting this practise to be referred to them or to contact them to discuss the matter.😈

BrenDan "When I solo, can I log the flight time as pilot in command (PIC) time?" "FAR 61.51(e)(4) says, "A student ...................................................................." My question "If the above quoted FAR's are Australian air law......" ????????????????? has not been answered

Well there you go - Cant win every debate. I have enjoyed it though. Some further thoughts for you; I still am of the opinion that, while under the supervision of an Instructor (even when not in aircraft) the student can not be considered to be Pilot In Command (note the capitols). Further- If the above quoted FAR's are Australian air law, there remains a direct conflict between the role & responsibilities of an Instructor and his/her student who now considers themselves to be a PIC - you can not have two PIC's in charge of the same aircraft, at the same time. It should be remembered that a PIC has the authority to overrule any direction that he /she feels is not in the best interest of the continued safe operation of the aircraft - does this mean that the student can, at their own discretion, now ignore the direction of the Instructor? As for insurance excess, the original topic; I strongly suspect that, if it ever came to court, coercing a student pilot into paying the excess for damage to/by an aircraft, is likly to fail in whole or part, depending on the experince of the student. It makes no sense at all that on the one hand the student is subject to the direction (control) of an Instructor & on the other hand is liable for damage - this is a contradiction that would see such a case fail. That the insurance industry has come up with a sales gimmick (the excess option) does not make the gimmick legal or ethical, when it is applied to a learner/student. pilot. Language evolves continuously, it would seem that command has come to mean control of and Command not recognised as having its much greater meaning. I believe that Pilot in Command (PIC) still has legal meaning and ramifications that an unlicensed pilot can not be part of. PIC is analogous to Captain of a ship - does a marine cadet or even Officer in Charge, get to award themselves the title of Captain????😈

Hi Neil, The PTT is a very simple spring loaded switch that only makes electrical contact when you press & hold it. If its failed, after many years of service, it is likly beyond economic repair. As Smokey said - just research what your local electronic store (JayCar in Australia) has to offer. They likly have many diffrent sizes & styles to choose from. Measure the dimensions of the old switch and use this to narrow your search.

BrendAn BrendAn - I thought we were having a civilised debate. Now you stoop to mis & out of context quoting. Who said anything about "..can't fly.." My scenario was about the unlikly hiring of an aircraft to an UNLICNSED person. My position is and always has been, in opposition to yours, where you apparently feel that a student should be liable for the damage to/by an aircraft that he /she is flying, while under instruction. I have repeatedly pointed out that the student is the responsibility of an Instructor. By definition, by law, by custom, this means that the Instructor is liable for any flying incident involving the student he/she is supervising. About three years ago, I did my tail wheel training, leading to an endorsement for the same. For the duration of my training, I was a student. I never once booked/hired an aircraft BUT I did book a particular Instructor and made my preference for a certain aircraft known (they had several Citabria's not all quite the same). My Instructor was at all times the PIC - I just followed his instructions, until he recommended me for my TW endorsement. The payments made were for flight instruction, which of necessity involved the use of an aircraft. You are now seeking to limit your position to that of the student going solo - calling him/her Pilot In Command. I have conceded only that the, now advanced student, may bear some increased responsibility (I am not totally convinced of this) BUT IS NOT PILOT IN COMMAND, the Instructor is still the PIC, even when not in the aircraft. You consistently mix up the manipulation of aircraft controls to manoeuvre an aircraft, with Command - they are not one in the same. Commend status, with its privileges and responsibilities, is only available to licensed pilots. .😈