Taking newbies flying...

That's the key.. over there. There are more laws over there to tell you
how to behave than there are here. But never fear, this country is
catching up by adding laws to take away from personal responsibility.

For now though it's perfectly legal (in the U.S.)

Stefan wrote:
Thomas Borchert schrieb:

Uhm, I'm afraid you are wrong. This is not illegal in the US. The word
"command" in PIC is taken seriously in the US - the PIC can decide
what happens onboard, including who is manipulating the controls. A
PIC in the US could sit in the baggage compartment.


I'm not sure he may hand over the controls to an unqualified person,
except if needed, of course. But always eager to learn something.

(Actually, I thought it to be legal myself earlier, deducing from the
sea laws. Then I've learnt that in aircraft, it is not, at least not
over here.)

Stefan

does anybody know where the regulation is? i can't find it in the FAR
but then again, i'm not anywhere near an expert

Robert Chambers wrote:
That's the key.. over there. There are more laws over there to tell you
how to behave than there are here. But never fear, this country is
catching up by adding laws to take away from personal responsibility.

For now though it's perfectly legal (in the U.S.)

Stefan wrote:
Thomas Borchert schrieb:

Uhm, I'm afraid you are wrong. This is not illegal in the US. The word
"command" in PIC is taken seriously in the US - the PIC can decide
what happens onboard, including who is manipulating the controls. A
PIC in the US could sit in the baggage compartment.


I'm not sure he may hand over the controls to an unqualified person,
except if needed, of course. But always eager to learn something.

(Actually, I thought it to be legal myself earlier, deducing from the
sea laws. Then I've learnt that in aircraft, it is not, at least not
over here.)

Stefan

"mad8" wrote in message
ups.com...
does anybody know where the regulation is? i can't find it in the FAR
but then again, i'm not anywhere near an expert

There is no regulation. It's not prohibited, so there's no regulation that
says it's prohibited. The absence of such a regulation is how you know it's
not prohibited.

mad8 writes:

does anybody know where the regulation is? i can't find it in the FAR
but then again, i'm not anywhere near an expert

There isn't any. It's the _absence_ of a specific prohibition that
makes it legal. There has to be a licensed pilot in command on board
the aircraft, who takes responsibility for operation of that aircraft,
but nothing in the regulations requires him or her to actually be at
the controls ... which means that it is legal for anyone to control
the plane.

I believe it is indeed inherited from maritime law, wherein the
captain of a vessel is master and commander of that vessel with very
broad authority.

Note that refusing to obey the commands of the pilot in command would
be mutiny. So if the PIC tells a passenger to give up the controls
and the latter refuses to do so, it's a felony.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
...
I believe it is indeed inherited from maritime law, wherein
the captain of a vessel is master and commander of that vessel
with very broad authority.

Note that refusing to obey the commands of the pilot in
command would be mutiny. So if the PIC tells a passenger to
give up the controls and the latter refuses to do so, it's a
felony.

Oh, my. A private aircraft flight, not involving terrorism? A
federal criminal statute may exist, so if so, please cite it for
us, to prove you know how to research and understand the law.
Cite two numbers with "USC" in the middle. Forget state law; a
generic statute should fit, but it has nothing specifically to do
with pilots, airplanes, or maritime law.

F--

TxSrv wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

...
I believe it is indeed inherited from maritime law, wherein
the captain of a vessel is master and commander of that vessel
with very broad authority.

Note that refusing to obey the commands of the pilot in
command would be mutiny. So if the PIC tells a passenger to
give up the controls and the latter refuses to do so, it's a
felony.


Oh, my. A private aircraft flight, not involving terrorism? A
federal criminal statute may exist, so if so, please cite it for us, to
prove you know how to research and understand the law. Cite two numbers
with "USC" in the middle. Forget state law; a generic statute should
fit, but it has nothing specifically to do with pilots, airplanes, or
maritime law.

You might find this interesting...

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia...9/crm01406.htm

The above scenario would seem to fit the
description of "interfering with a flight
crew" and reading the narrative, I would
tend to think it would apply to GA as well
as commercial flights. The act of refusing
to relinquish the flight controls does not
seem to meet the definition of mutiny,

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia...9/crm01407.htm

though it might easily escalate to it...

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:12:40 -0500, TxSrv wrote:

Oh, my. A private aircraft flight, not involving terrorism? A
federal criminal statute may exist, so if so, please cite it for
us, to prove you know how to research and understand the law.
Cite two numbers with "USC" in the middle. Forget state law; a
generic statute should fit, but it has nothing specifically to do
with pilots, airplanes, or maritime law.

Just to ask, is 49 USC 46504 restricted to commercial ops?

Peter Clark wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:12:40 -0500, TxSrv wrote:


Oh, my. A private aircraft flight, not involving terrorism? A
federal criminal statute may exist, so if so, please cite it for
us, to prove you know how to research and understand the law.
Cite two numbers with "USC" in the middle. Forget state law; a
generic statute should fit, but it has nothing specifically to do
with pilots, airplanes, or maritime law.


Just to ask, is 49 USC 46504 restricted to commercial ops?

It would appear to apply to "any civil aircraft"

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia...9/crm01405.htm

Peter Clark wrote:

Just to ask, is 49 USC 46504 restricted to commercial ops?

No, and apparently that one's a winner, as long as the
"interference" can be proven. However, a prosecution guideline
document on DOJ's web site is worded such that airline or at
least charter aircraft are the target of this statute. If indeed
Congressional intent is airlines, an indictment might be tossed
by the Court. It's further not a federal crime if DOJ won't
prosecute. If only the pilot and offending pax are on board,
prosecution will be difficult w/o witnesses. If witnesses and
the pilot regains control and lands like a C-172 safely, federal
prosecution doesn't seem called for nor is jail sentence assured.
State law can likely prosecute also, preferably if an assault on
the pilot, or a crash, or dangerous buzzing flight occurred.

F--

Peter Clark writes:

Just to ask, is 49 USC 46504 restricted to commercial ops?

No.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.