5 ms·

One might argue that if he's specifically following the direct instructions of the ATC, who is a licensed pilot in this case, that the ATC is "the pilot," and h

One might argue that if he's specifically following the direct instructions of the ATC, who is a licensed pilot in this case, that the ATC is "the pilot," and his allowing of a non-pilot to push the buttons on his behalf was a necessary deviation to handle the emergency and land the plane.

ledauphin 4y ago
there's absolutely no way the controller qualifies as PIC for this event - to be PIC of a non-unmanned aircraft you would have to be onboard the aircraft.
schmookeeg 4y ago
That's an interesting twist -- I really hope nobody at the FAA gets such a wild hair to try to pin a certificate action on the ATC controller (here or ever, in any situation), but -- There is a SODA precedent for what you describe. As I understand it, a deaf pilot can get an instrument rating if they have a translator onboard to run comms for them and translate to ASL in-cockpit. So this is sort of the same situation you're contemplating, with a different chair position -- "translator" in the ATC room instead of the right seat. I do feel the regulations allow all sorts of circuitous logic, that any "outcome" could be achieved with enough incentive. ATC is the last place on earth where I feel cooperation is the inviolate rule of the day, so I'd hate for some maverick prosecutor to throw ice water on the pilot-controller relationship in a witch-hunt for blame.
JasonFruit 4y ago
If that's the case, shouldn't the controller be a Certificated Remote Pilot under Part 107 rules?
- Ancapistani 4y ago
  Heh - I think this wouldn’t fall under 107 because the aircraft weighs more than fifty pounds. … unless they applied for and were granted a waiver beforehand, which would raise other questions :)
  - JasonFruit 4y ago
    That should probably be done as a precaution for all aircraft. It's a win for everyone.
Ancapistani 4y ago
I’m far more familiar with operation under Part 107 (sUAS, i.e., drones <50#), but this seems consistent with how the FAA has it structured. I let kids fly my quadcopters regularly. Legally, I’m the “RPIC” - “remote pilot in command”. The fact that someone else is physical operating the controls is irrelevant. I’m responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. Because it’s remote, there is a requirement that I be able to take immediate control of the aircraft if necessary; standing next to the person with the controller is sufficient to meet that requirement.

ledauphin 4y ago

there's absolutely no way the controller qualifies as PIC for this event - to be PIC of a non-unmanned aircraft you would have to be onboard the aircraft.

schmookeeg 4y ago

That's an interesting twist -- I really hope nobody at the FAA gets such a wild hair to try to pin a certificate action on the ATC controller (here or ever, in any situation), but -- There is a SODA precedent for what you describe. As I understand it, a deaf pilot can get an instrument rating if they have a translator onboard to run comms for them and translate to ASL in-cockpit. So this is sort of the same situation you're contemplating, with a different chair position -- "translator" in the ATC room instead of the right seat. I do feel the regulations allow all sorts of circuitous logic, that any "outcome" could be achieved with enough incentive. ATC is the last place on earth where I feel cooperation is the inviolate rule of the day, so I'd hate for some maverick prosecutor to throw ice water on the pilot-controller relationship in a witch-hunt for blame.

JasonFruit 4y ago

If that's the case, shouldn't the controller be a Certificated Remote Pilot under Part 107 rules?

Ancapistani 4y ago
Heh - I think this wouldn’t fall under 107 because the aircraft weighs more than fifty pounds. … unless they applied for and were granted a waiver beforehand, which would raise other questions :)
- JasonFruit 4y ago
  That should probably be done as a precaution for all aircraft. It's a win for everyone.

Ancapistani 4y ago

I’m far more familiar with operation under Part 107 (sUAS, i.e., drones <50#), but this seems consistent with how the FAA has it structured. I let kids fly my quadcopters regularly. Legally, I’m the “RPIC” - “remote pilot in command”. The fact that someone else is physical operating the controls is irrelevant. I’m responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. Because it’s remote, there is a requirement that I be able to take immediate control of the aircraft if necessary; standing next to the person with the controller is sufficient to meet that requirement.