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

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.

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

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.

"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.

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.

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? :-))

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)

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 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.

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.