> I have the 'bunny' bars for my wing.
> I have a throttle lever for the back seat.
> There is no brake pedal for the back seat.
> There is no steering for the back seat.
> There is no kill switches for the back seat.
>
> I see no need for the brake nor steering for the back seat.
> I see back seat kill switches as an accident waiting to happen.
>
> The FARs do not mandate brake and steering controls for the back seat,
> they just recommend flight controls.
> (if I could look up the specific FAR if your interested)
They don't *recommend* flight controls, they *require* flight and engine
power controls. Brake controls are indeed not required. Steering could well
be, though: how do you keep it pointed down the runway on takeoff and
landing? That's enough to make it a flight control, not just a ground
control.
And, like it or not, a kill switch *is* an engine power control.
A discussion of dual controls as they relate to 61.45 can be found, for AOPA
members, at http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/regdual.html .
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 08:47:01AM -0700, Richard Williams wrote:
> I think I'll mention 61.45, which is much more pertinent to this discussion.
It's not pertinent to instruction, just the checkride. You were talking
about both.
> (c) Required controls
> "..., unless the examiner determines that the practical test can be conducted safely in
> the aircraft without the controls being easily reached."
> ---------------------------
> This means that ground operation controls (steering and brake) are not
> required to be available to the examiner.
Brakes, no. (And the AOPA document above backs that up.) As I mentioned
above, though, the steering could easily be seen as a flight control.
> This means the examiner does not have to have flight controls if the
> examiner determines safety of the flight is adequate for the practical
> test.
For a flight test, true. I can see an examiner doing this, say, on a
commercial checkride, where the candidate is known to be able to fly.
That's not going to be true on any initial pilot certificate checkride,
though. It's sadly far too common for a student to rack up lots of hours and
still not be competent to fly the aircraft as pilot in command. Why should
an examiner take his life into his hands based solely on your word?
Thre's also the minor matter of needing an instructor's signoff to take the
practical test. Even if you can find an examiner who will go up with you in
an aircraft he can't control himself, you still need dual to get the
signoff, and that runs you smack into 91.109(a) again.
> BTW:
> If the examiner thinks the student cannot control the aircraft, then what
> is the examiner doing giving a Practical Test?
If the examiner has a preconceived notion about the student, why is he
acting in a position that requires he be impartial?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
Sport_Aircraft-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sport_Aircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment