Responsible?

[Fly High]

Quick question here for you. If you have a single pilot airplane but you have 2 pilots flying it each time it flies. Let's say that the pilot flying today has his commercial and the pilot sitting in the right seat has his ATP but just runs that radios and slings the gear today. If something happens, who is responsible? I have heard a few different opinions. 1.)The pilot manipulating the controls is the PIC, thus the responsible one. 2.) The pilot with the highest rating is ultimately responsible for the airplane, even though that pilot is not flying.

Opinions? Any Legal or Regulatory reference?

Thanks!

 

[LegacyDriver]

They'll hang you both.

Bottom line for me is, if I sign the paperwork I'm the PIC, and ultimately responsible regardless. If your name is on the paperwork...

 

[mavrck]

agreed. Whoever is dispatched as the PIC, retains the responsibility as PIC.

 

[ultrarunner]

First off, forget about all this stuff about dispatch, paperwork, etc....that all deals with airlines that issue a dispatch release, or 135 operations that "assign" a PIC.

In the corporate world there isn't any of that.

If you've filed a flight plan the FAA will come looking for who's name is in box 14.

Regardless of who has "higher" ratings, etc....

 

[Captn]

Next scenario....

What if they are operating VFR ?

 

[JJET44]

I doesn't matter who the PF (pilot flying) is, it's who's in command. If the PF isn't typed he can never act as PIC 91/135/121 period. Therefore the PIC rated pilot has the ultimate authority and therefore the responsibility.

 

[Headwind]

About ten years back a private pilot, owner operator, in a Conquest had an ATP riding with him in the right seat. The pilot flying forgot to put the gear down. In the flair the PNF noticed just as the antenna scraped the runway. He took over, circled, and landed. The only damage was to the antenna.
A week later the owner pilot took the aircraft to an avionics shop to replace the antenna. They reported to the FAA who investigated the incident. The FAA violated the ATP, but not the owner pilot. His reply was that he was not the PIC, just a passenger, and he saved the aircraft. FAA said he was an ATP and should not have let the problem get as far as it did before taking over and saving the day.
This is a true story. I talked with the people.

 

[say again]

I doesn't matter who the PF (pilot flying) is, it's who's in command. If the PF isn't typed he can never act as PIC 91/135/121 period. Therefore the PIC rated pilot has the ultimate authority and therefore the responsibility.

What if its a King Air 200?? No type needed. But Im gonna have to agree with what others say- if youre nominated PIC, sign as the PIC, then you are ultimately responsible.

 

[ackattacker]

The problem as some people have pointed out is that if you are part 91 then nobody is "signing for" the aircraft. I have seen it fall both ways, depending on the FAA's mood that day. Refer to headwind's post, then consider this story that happened to people I know:

Owner pilot in a C421 has ATP rated, multiple type rated, CFI, Designated Examiner (!!) riding along right seat required for insurance purposes. Aircraft lands at night into a heavy rain shower and loses all visual reference as it touches down. At the very last minute on the ground the DE takes the controls but is unable to prevent the aircraft departing the runway, doing substantial damage.

FAA lets the DE slide but gives the owner pilot gets a 709 ride and a letter in his file.

Reason? FAA looks after their own.

 

[avbug]

The problem as some people have pointed out is that if you are part 91 then nobody is "signing for" the aircraft.

Someone is always pilot in command.

Being pilot in command doesn't necessarily mean one will experience the greatest burden in enforcement action; it's a little more complicated than that.

Who will suffer enforcement action? Get very, very specific, and we'll have a place to start.