Too many pilots in the cockpit spoil the landing...

[Gene Seibel]

NTSB Identification: DEN04LA009
Accident occurred Sunday, October 12, 2003 in Las Cruces, NM
Aircraft: Piper PA-28-140, registration: N891GP
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

According to the commercial pilot, they were repositioning the
aircraft for Arizona Aero Tech and were stopping at Las Cruces to
refuel. The private pilot, seated in the left seat, was flying the
airplane, and was attempting to land on runway 08. During the landing
flare, a wind gust caught the airplane and it began to drift off of
the runway centerline. The private pilot pulled the throttle and
continued to land. At that time, the commercial pilot added power to
attempt a go-around, and the private pilot pulled the throttle a
second time. As the airplane approached the departure end of runway
08, the commercial pilot took control of the airplane. He added power
to attempt a go-around. The airplane began to stall/mush and the right
main landing gear caught a patch of sage brush and the airplane
impacted the terrain. The impact with terrain separated the right main
landing gear and displaced the right wing.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Marco Leon]

That must be a sticky legal situation. As PIC, is the left seat pilot
responsible for wrestling the controls from the commercial pilot? Who would
the FAA be referring to when they say "pilot failed to..."? How about the
insurance company?

Anyone been through this?

Marco

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
om...
> NTSB Identification: DEN04LA009
> Accident occurred Sunday, October 12, 2003 in Las Cruces, NM
> Aircraft: Piper PA-28-140, registration: N891GP
> Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
>
> According to the commercial pilot, they were repositioning the
> aircraft for Arizona Aero Tech and were stopping at Las Cruces to
> refuel. The private pilot, seated in the left seat, was flying the
> airplane, and was attempting to land on runway 08. During the landing
> flare, a wind gust caught the airplane and it began to drift off of
> the runway centerline. The private pilot pulled the throttle and
> continued to land. At that time, the commercial pilot added power to
> attempt a go-around, and the private pilot pulled the throttle a
> second time. As the airplane approached the departure end of runway
> 08, the commercial pilot took control of the airplane. He added power
> to attempt a go-around. The airplane began to stall/mush and the right
> main landing gear caught a patch of sage brush and the airplane
> impacted the terrain. The impact with terrain separated the right main
> landing gear and displaced the right wing.
> --
> Gene Seibel
> Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
> Because I fly, I envy no one.



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

Marco Leon wrote:
>
> That must be a sticky legal situation. As PIC, is the left seat pilot
> responsible for wrestling the controls from the commercial pilot? Who would
> the FAA be referring to when they say "pilot failed to..."?

The FAA has a long-standing practice of going after the pilot who has the most
advanced ratings. They have been known to violate pilots who were in parts of
the plane that made it impossible for them to take the controls. They almost
certainly will claim the commercial pilot was PIC. Not that it matters - there's
nothing to stop the FAA from violating both pilots.

> How about the insurance company?

Depends on the policy. They almost certainly will pay off, but they may elect
to sue either or both of the pilots.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[Ron Natalie]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message ...

> The FAA has a long-standing practice of going after the pilot who has the most
> advanced ratings.

Actually, the have a practice of going after the pilot who can most be harmed by
the enforcement action.

[Montblack]

.....according to the commercial pilot.

--
Montblack
"Just the usual inanity"


"Gene Seibel"
> NTSB Identification: DEN04LA009
> Accident occurred Sunday, October 12, 2003 in Las Cruces, NM
> Aircraft: Piper PA-28-140, registration: N891GP
> Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
<snip>
> As the airplane approached the departure end of runway
> 08, the commercial pilot took control of the airplane. He added power
> to attempt a go-around. The airplane began to stall/mush and the right
> main landing gear caught a patch of sage brush and the airplane
> impacted the terrain. The impact with terrain separated the right main
> landing gear and displaced the right wing.

[Greg Esres]

<<They have been known to violate pilots who were in parts of the
plane that made it impossible for them to take the controls.>>

I keep hearing that story, but have yet to see an actual case where
that occurred. Do you have any references?

[Greg Esres]

<<As PIC, is the left seat pilot responsible for wrestling the
controls from the commercial pilot? >>

What does being the left seat pilot have to do with being PIC?

[Marco Leon]

Nothing. It was just an identifying descriptor according to the story. If he
was said to have a red shirt, I would have called him "the pilot in the red
shirt."

Marco

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<As PIC, is the left seat pilot responsible for wrestling the
> controls from the commercial pilot? >>
>
> What does being the left seat pilot have to do with being PIC?



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Jim]

wax on
wax off
power on
power off
full power
pull power
take off power!
ok
crash
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
om...
> NTSB Identification: DEN04LA009
> Accident occurred Sunday, October 12, 2003 in Las Cruces, NM
> Aircraft: Piper PA-28-140, registration: N891GP
> Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
>
> According to the commercial pilot, they were repositioning the
> aircraft for Arizona Aero Tech and were stopping at Las Cruces to
> refuel. The private pilot, seated in the left seat, was flying the
> airplane, and was attempting to land on runway 08. During the landing
> flare, a wind gust caught the airplane and it began to drift off of
> the runway centerline. The private pilot pulled the throttle and
> continued to land. At that time, the commercial pilot added power to
> attempt a go-around, and the private pilot pulled the throttle a
> second time. As the airplane approached the departure end of runway
> 08, the commercial pilot took control of the airplane. He added power
> to attempt a go-around. The airplane began to stall/mush and the right
> main landing gear caught a patch of sage brush and the airplane
> impacted the terrain. The impact with terrain separated the right main
> landing gear and displaced the right wing.
> --
> Gene Seibel
> Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
> Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:39:39 GMT, Greg Esres > wrote
in Message-Id: >:

>What does being the left seat pilot have to do with being PIC?

It's a convention in some aircraft insurance policies, IIRC.

[Greg Esres]

<<It's a convention in some aircraft insurance policies, IIRC.>>

No doubt, but this wasn't an insurance company report.

The poster showed a common misperception that the left seat pilot is
automatically the PIC, since the report did not give any indication as
to who was PIC. I was just doing my part to dispel that notion. ;-)

[G.R. Patterson III]

Greg Esres wrote:
>
> I keep hearing that story, but have yet to see an actual case where
> that occurred. Do you have any references?

I get my info from the AOPA legal articles (written by John Yodice). Those
should be online, if you want to do the legwork. In one of the published cases,
the Feds went after a CFI who was in the back seat at the time of the incident.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message ...
>
> > The FAA has a long-standing practice of going after the pilot who has the most
> > advanced ratings.
>
> Actually, the have a practice of going after the pilot who can most be harmed by
> the enforcement action.

Same-same.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[Greg Esres]

<<Those should be online, if you want to do the legwork. In one of the
published cases, the Feds went after a CFI who was in the back seat at
the time of the incident.>>

The only case I can find is an *Inspector* who was the object of a
lawsuit, even though he was riding in the backseat. However, he was
giving instructions to the pilot, who was being evaluated, so there is
some legitimacy to the charge.

There are multiple other articles talking about "who was PIC", but
this riding in the backseat thing was never mentioned, even though it
would have been appropriate.

I suspect the concept of a CFI riding in the backset, minding his own
business, and being charged with a violation is an OWT.

[Icebound]

Greg Esres wrote:
>
> I suspect the concept of a CFI riding in the backset, minding his own
> business, and being charged with a violation is an OWT.
>

I think you mean "urban legend", except I guess it would be a "air-ban
legend"



--
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the
courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
--- Serenity Prayer

[Peter Duniho]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
> > I suspect the concept of a CFI riding in the backset, minding his own
> > business, and being charged with a violation is an OWT.
>
> I think you mean "urban legend"

What's the difference between an old wives' tale and an urban legend?

[Capt. Doug]

>Ron Natalie wrote in message > Actually, the have a practice of going after
the pilot >who can most be harmed by the enforcement action.

Hmm... If the commercial pilot doesn't have his certficate in his personal
possession, he can't be PIC.

D. (what's a little air piracy amongst friends? :-))

[Teacherjh]

>Hmm... If the commercial pilot doesn't have his certficate in his personal
>possession, he can't be PIC.

There's another thing to violate him on. He might also be drunk as a skunk,
passed out on the back seat while the less experienced pilot flying in the
front seat makes a mistake which would then be charged to the drunken sot in
the rear.

Jose
(I hope it doesn't =really= happen that way!)
--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Paul]

I guess the safe thing would be to insure that if you're flying in a
friend's plane that he has a higher rating than you..<G>
An interesting thing happened at my home field S-44 last week. A chap a few
hangers up from me took out his pristine Luscombe out for some local flying.
A CFI from the local FBO comment he had no conventional gear time and was
invited to go along for a ride.

When landing to the South, there are some very tall trees which necessitates
a displaced threshold of 250 feet. Well coming down final, the pilot was too
low and the CFI passenger mentioned this a couple of times. He did not take
over the controls. The Luscombe was so low that you can see scrape marks on
the bottom of the cowl where he got the fence. The plane of course flipped &
was totally destroyed. The owner had some serious lacerations, the CFI
passenger scrapes and bruises.

So instead of an interesting ride, the CFI passenger might be facing a
career move.

Cheers:

Paul
NC2273H

[Peter R.]

Peter Duniho ) wrote:

>
> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> le.rogers.com...
> > > I suspect the concept of a CFI riding in the backset, minding his own
> > > business, and being charged with a violation is an OWT.
> >
> > I think you mean "urban legend"
>
> What's the difference between an old wives' tale and an urban legend?


Don't OWT's usually deal with quick, undocumented home remedies, such as:

"Put butter on a burn."

"To sell your house fast, bury a small statue of St. Joseph in the front
lawn."

"If a dog gets sprayed by a skunk, wash the dog in tomato juice."

etc...

At least that is what comes to my mind when I hear the phrase OWT.


--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Marco Leon]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<It's a convention in some aircraft insurance policies, IIRC.>>
>
> No doubt, but this wasn't an insurance company report.
>
> The poster showed a common misperception that the left seat pilot is
> automatically the PIC, since the report did not give any indication as
> to who was PIC. I was just doing my part to dispel that notion. ;-)

I hope you are not referring to my post because, as I stated, the "left
seat" was used only to identify one person from the other.





Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Don't OWT's usually deal with quick, undocumented home remedies

My interpretation of the term is more broad than that, including things that
I also consider an urban legend. The American Heritage Dictionary defines
"old wives' tale" this way: "A superstitious belief or story belonging to
traditional folklore".

I suppose that would exclude the CFI/backseat story based on one's
definition of "traditional folklore", but certainly not just because it's
more of a story than a briefly stated "home remedy".

Personally, I find the terms somewhat interchangeable and certainly not
different enough to warrant correcting someone in a newsgroup. But I
suppose if someone wanted to be picky, it could be debated. :)

Pete

[Greg Esres]

<<Personally, I find the terms somewhat interchangeable>>

I did pause for about 2 seconds to decide which term I was going to
use, but I decided that "OWT" was more of an aviation-related term
than was "urban legend". U/L seems more appropriate for the common
people; you know, those that don't fly airplanes. ;-)

[Greg Esres]

<<I hope you are not referring to my post because, as I stated, the
"left seat" was used only to identify one person from the other.>>

I was, because you said "As PIC, is the left seat pilot responsible
for wrestling..."

There was nothing in the original post to indicate that the left seat
pilot was PIC.

[Marco Leon]

OK, if I wrote, "As PIC, is the person in the red shirt responsible for...."
am I implying that people with red shirts should always be considered PIC??

I KNOW you don't have to be in the left seat to be PIC. OK, here's my
question stated differently, "As PIC, are you responsible for making sure
the person with the other set of controls keeps their hands off the
yoke/stick?" How's that?



"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<I hope you are not referring to my post because, as I stated, the
> "left seat" was used only to identify one person from the other.>>
>
> I was, because you said "As PIC, is the left seat pilot responsible
> for wrestling..."
>
> There was nothing in the original post to indicate that the left seat
> pilot was PIC.
>
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Peter Duniho]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<Personally, I find the terms somewhat interchangeable>>
>
> I did pause for about 2 seconds to decide which term I was going to
> use, but I decided that "OWT" was more of an aviation-related term
> than was "urban legend".

I agree with that point, but the funny thing is the main reason I agree is
that there are so many OWTs in aviation. Ack. I wonder how many other
industries are similarly rife with misinformation.

Pete

[Dan Luke]

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
> ...there are so many OWTs in aviation.

"Getting on the step" springs to mind. My father believed that one, and
nothing could budge him. He used to cuss an A-20 pilot he'd flown with
(Dad was a gunner) for not getting on the step and thus falling behind
the formation, "...even though all the other pilots told him how to do
it!"

> Ack. I wonder how many other
> industries are similarly rife with misinformation.

The HVAC industry is full of OWT's.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:25:55 -0500, "Marco Leon"
<mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>I KNOW you don't have to be in the left seat to be PIC. OK, here's my
>question stated differently, "As PIC, are you responsible for making sure
>the person with the other set of controls keeps their hands off the
>yoke/stick?" How's that?


That's an interesting question. I hadn't really thought about it
before.

I have been guilty of nudging the controls occasionally when I
perceive something I don't think the PIC has. I would hope someone
would lookout for me the same way should I attempt a maneuver that
places the aircraft outside comfortable limits or the published
performance envelope or recommended parameters. However, it does blur
the responsibility for commanding the flight.

A more professional approach would involve strictly verbal
communication phrases agreed upon before departure. Although, two
pilots each sitting at a set of controls could explicitly agree to
permit each other to provide some control input when they thought it
appropriate and helpful. For example, in a PA28-235 on final, I'll
activate the electric fuel pumps for the PIC if he hasn't gotten
around to it. It seems prudent and helpful. I haven't had any
complaints so far, but it happens very infrequently considering how
seldom I fly as SIC.

I'll have to give it some more thought...


I copied this out of a magazine several years ago when I was often
flying with another pilot:



Cockpit Resource Management


CRM is the effective use of all resources - hardware, software,
leadership, and humanware - to achieve safe and efficient flight
operation.

Don't divide duties as they are on most airlines. There, the
pilot becomes too dependent on a copilot, because the pilot simply
flys the aircraft, while the copilot does everything else - radios,
navigation, checklists, and backing up the pilot as to proper
altitudes and headings.

The CRM philosophy puts the onus on the pilot for communications,
checklists, and decision making. Decisions are based on the concerns
of the less comfortable pilot. The copilot handles navigation,
cross-checks the pilot's communication and navigation frequencies for
an instrument approach, and assures that the altitude requirements are
met at the final approach fix and at minimums. The copilot still has
plenty to do, managing the aircraft's loran, RNAV radio, or handheld
GPS moving map display that is used as a backup. In addition, the
copilot scans for other traffic, keeps a running check on fields in
which to land - just in case - and keeps track of the nearest airport.
The copilot knows s/he is to support and backup the pilot and offer
help in emergency situations.

Pre-takeoff briefing is important for any flight; it can be
abbreviated, however, when another pilot is aboard. It can be as
simple as thinking out loud. If you expect the other pilot to help
with the flight, say so before takeoff. Spend several minutes before
the flight explaining to the non-pilot passenger how to control the
aircraft and how to communicate. Once in the air, spend a few minutes
letting the passenger fly. It is fun for the passenger and gives the
pilot another resource to use in case of a medical emergency.

[William W. Plummer]

61.3 says the PIC is responsible for the safe conduct of the flight.


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:25:55 -0500, "Marco Leon"
> <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
>
> >I KNOW you don't have to be in the left seat to be PIC. OK, here's my
> >question stated differently, "As PIC, are you responsible for making sure
> >the person with the other set of controls keeps their hands off the
> >yoke/stick?" How's that?
>
>
> That's an interesting question. I hadn't really thought about it
> before.
>
> I have been guilty of nudging the controls occasionally when I
> perceive something I don't think the PIC has. I would hope someone
> would lookout for me the same way should I attempt a maneuver that
> places the aircraft outside comfortable limits or the published
> performance envelope or recommended parameters. However, it does blur
> the responsibility for commanding the flight.
>
> A more professional approach would involve strictly verbal
> communication phrases agreed upon before departure. Although, two
> pilots each sitting at a set of controls could explicitly agree to
> permit each other to provide some control input when they thought it
> appropriate and helpful. For example, in a PA28-235 on final, I'll
> activate the electric fuel pumps for the PIC if he hasn't gotten
> around to it. It seems prudent and helpful. I haven't had any
> complaints so far, but it happens very infrequently considering how
> seldom I fly as SIC.
>
> I'll have to give it some more thought...
>
>
> I copied this out of a magazine several years ago when I was often
> flying with another pilot:
>
>
>
> Cockpit Resource Management
>
>
> CRM is the effective use of all resources - hardware, software,
> leadership, and humanware - to achieve safe and efficient flight
> operation.
>
> Don't divide duties as they are on most airlines. There, the
> pilot becomes too dependent on a copilot, because the pilot simply
> flys the aircraft, while the copilot does everything else - radios,
> navigation, checklists, and backing up the pilot as to proper
> altitudes and headings.
>
> The CRM philosophy puts the onus on the pilot for communications,
> checklists, and decision making. Decisions are based on the concerns
> of the less comfortable pilot. The copilot handles navigation,
> cross-checks the pilot's communication and navigation frequencies for
> an instrument approach, and assures that the altitude requirements are
> met at the final approach fix and at minimums. The copilot still has
> plenty to do, managing the aircraft's loran, RNAV radio, or handheld
> GPS moving map display that is used as a backup. In addition, the
> copilot scans for other traffic, keeps a running check on fields in
> which to land - just in case - and keeps track of the nearest airport.
> The copilot knows s/he is to support and backup the pilot and offer
> help in emergency situations.
>
> Pre-takeoff briefing is important for any flight; it can be
> abbreviated, however, when another pilot is aboard. It can be as
> simple as thinking out loud. If you expect the other pilot to help
> with the flight, say so before takeoff. Spend several minutes before
> the flight explaining to the non-pilot passenger how to control the
> aircraft and how to communicate. Once in the air, spend a few minutes
> letting the passenger fly. It is fun for the passenger and gives the
> pilot another resource to use in case of a medical emergency.
>
>

[Icebound]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> le.rogers.com...
>
>>>I suspect the concept of a CFI riding in the backset, minding his own
>>>business, and being charged with a violation is an OWT.
>>
>>I think you mean "urban legend"
>
>
> What's the difference between an old wives' tale and an urban legend?
>
>

An OWT involves a solution for a problem. The solution is scientifically
lacking or the problem does not exist.

An urban legend is a widely-reported occurrance or existance that never
happened or existed.







--
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the
courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
--- Serenity Prayer

[G.R. Patterson III]

Icebound wrote:
>
> An OWT involves a solution for a problem. The solution is scientifically
> lacking or the problem does not exist.

And every few years, some scientist studies an old wives' tale for kicks and
figures out why it's true. At that point, it ceases to be an OWT.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[Dan Luke]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
> And every few years, some scientist studies an old wives' tale for
kicks
> and figures out why it's true. At that point, it ceases to be an OWT.

Can you cite one, Gerge?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dan Luke wrote:
>
> Can you cite one, Gerge?

I'll give you two. There was an OWT to the effect that you could tell it was
going to rain if the frogs started making a lot of noise. Another one went that
it was going to rain if a silver maple turned its leaves up and showed the
bottom side. Turns out that the reason for this is that both the frogs and the
leaves are sensitive to humidity changes. Before about 1980, these were old
wives' tales, however. After some researcher did some work on it, they are
scientifically verified facts.

One OWT that appears to be true by my observation is that, if hornets build
their nests low, it's going to be a rough winter. I'd really love it if someone
could prove that one and figure out the cause.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Dan Luke" > writes:

> "G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
> > And every few years, some scientist studies an old wives' tale for
> kicks
> > and figures out why it's true. At that point, it ceases to be an OWT.
>
> Can you cite one, Gerge?

Willow bark / aspirin, digitalis.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>