"Guard the controls..."

[Live2Learn]

The latest safety Beacon contains an interesting article written by General Vazquez.  His topic is check rides.  For the most part is very clear and straightforward.  General Vazquez offers some excellent suggestions that really should be part of every flight... identifying PIC, positive exchange of controls, 'trust but verify', etc.  However, what he means in his rule number 5 is very unclear.  Here's what he says: "5) Guard the controls as if an applicant is a first time solo student.  I don't care if Fred has 10,000+ hours – today might be a very bad day for Fred...."  What, exactly, do check pilots on forum interpret "Guard the controls..." to mean?  FWIW, at the end of GV's article is an explicit statement that FAA regulations and CAPR 60-1 trump anything the General wrote.  For me, the footnote merely adds to the ambiguity in 'rule 5'.

Further muddling the implied direction which isn't in fact direction (according to the Editor's note) are CAPR 60-1 Section 3-7 l. which reads "CAP instructor and check pilots must be FAA and CAP qualified and current in all requirements to act as PIC for the operation(s) being exercised during the instruction of, or flight evaluation for CAP members; this pertains to all types of flight/mission instruction, as well as CAPF 5/91's in all aircraft types. " and WIMRS which requires that a pilot with a current CAPF5 enter, manage, and close the sortie as PIC.  So, who is really PIC?  Is it the check pilot occupying the right seat who is to treat each left seater as a solo student, or the properly credentialed pilot in the left seat??

Thoughts, anyone?

[TheSkyHornet]

I can't speak as an instructor, but as a pilot, "Guard" to me indicates hovering your hand over the flight controls. As a pilot, and student at times, I don't appreciate someone constantly about to input some movement into the yoke that I'm not expecting. I understand that some instructors can get uncomfortable with some students, but there are times when you start putting in your control inputs and you can feel even the slightest inhibition to the yoke because someone's hand is just barely touching it.

Perhaps his point is to "monitor" the controls, and maintain a constant awareness of the attitude of the pilot and aircraft. But this needs to stressed that flying with another pilot, even a non-check airman or non-instructor, is a learning experience for both, and to constantly grab at the controls takes away the ability to make mistakes and learn from them, so long as safety isn't compromised. I can see where some instructors want their hands near the yoke during takeoff or landing, but knee jerk reactions can sometimes cause even more safety issues than landing a pilot botch a landing. Some instructors are so jumpy that they make it worse than it already was, if it was even that bad to begin with.

Story---
My flight instructor during my student pilot days got a little jumpy at times since I was new to flying and he was new to instructing. And on a windy crosswind day, we're getting tossed a bit on final. As I'm just doing my flare and getting the wheels down, he grabbed the yoke and pulled back a bit, harder than he wanted because he didn't expect my resistance on it. He hit the rudder pedal in the process and we have a wonderful wing dip close to the ground. We ended up alright, and taxied off with him saying "That was my bad. I shouldn't have done that." I explained that had I felt like I couldn't handle it, I would have said something or gone around. I would have even asked him to do the next landing if I wasn't comfortable, which I did as a student pilot, and I'd still do it today if I felt like I got myself into a situation I couldn't perform in.

As far as PIC, it would really depend on what you're doing and what you're qualifications are. You can both log PIC time during a CAPF 5 if you're both qualified and current to operate that aircraft. Really, you're not getting Dual Received time since you're not receiving instruction; you're having a flight review. If you aren't qualified in that aircraft and the Form 5 is part of your checkout, then you really might be receiving Dual time but not PIC time. It's a very complex question not easily answered. The key is to establish, before departure, who's in charge of the flight operation, not just the sole manipulator of the controls, which can shift during the flight through positive transfer.

[Garibaldi]

I can't speak as an instructor, but as a pilot, "Guard" to me indicates hovering your hand over the flight controls. As a pilot, and student at times, I don't appreciate someone constantly about to input some movement into the yoke that I'm not expecting. I understand that some instructors can get uncomfortable with some students, but there are times when you start putting in your control inputs and you can feel even the slightest inhibition to the yoke because someone's hand is just barely touching it.

Perhaps his point is to "monitor" the controls, and maintain a constant awareness of the attitude of the pilot and aircraft. But this needs to stressed that flying with another pilot, even a non-check airman or non-instructor, is a learning experience for both, and to constantly grab at the controls takes away the ability to make mistakes and learn from them, so long as safety isn't compromised. I can see where some instructors want their hands near the yoke during takeoff or landing, but knee jerk reactions can sometimes cause even more safety issues than landing a pilot botch a landing. Some instructors are so jumpy that they make it worse than it already was, if it was even that bad to begin with.

Story---
My flight instructor during my student pilot days got a little jumpy at times since I was new to flying and he was new to instructing. And on a windy crosswind day, we're getting tossed a bit on final. As I'm just doing my flare and getting the wheels down, he grabbed the yoke and pulled back a bit, harder than he wanted because he didn't expect my resistance on it. He hit the rudder pedal in the process and we have a wonderful wing dip close to the ground. We ended up alright, and taxied off with him saying "That was my bad. I shouldn't have done that." I explained that had I felt like I couldn't handle it, I would have said something or gone around. I would have even asked him to do the next landing if I wasn't comfortable, which I did as a student pilot, and I'd still do it today if I felt like I got myself into a situation I couldn't perform in.

As far as PIC, it would really depend on what you're doing and what you're qualifications are. You can both log PIC time during a CAPF 5 if you're both qualified and current to operate that aircraft. Really, you're not getting Dual Received time since you're not receiving instruction; you're having a flight review. If you aren't qualified in that aircraft and the Form 5 is part of your checkout, then you really might be receiving Dual time but not PIC time. It's a very complex question not easily answered. The key is to establish, before departure, who's in charge of the flight operation, not just the sole manipulator of the controls, which can shift during the flight through positive transfer.

Hang on...aren't instructors supposed to say something like "I've got it" or "Pilot/instructor's airplane" prior to taking control?

[LSThiker]

Here's what he says: "5) Guard the controls as if an applicant is a first time solo student.  I don't care if Fred has 10,000+ hours – today might be a very bad day for Fred...."  What, exactly, do check pilots on forum interpret "Guard the controls..." to mean?

The bottom line is simply, do not always assume.  Just because Fred has 10,000+ hours, that does not mean the check pilot can just sit back and relax.  You never know the kind of day that people are having.  He/she may make a mistake.  Or worse yet, have been taught wrong and/or doing things unsafely.  If you are not mentally ready to notice the error and/or correct it, by the time you react it may already be too late.  How the check pilot deals with the mistake should already be worked out or discussed with the pilot before the flight takes off. 

[TheSkyHornet]

For a transfer of controls, you would have something along the lines of:
"I've got the airplane."
"You're airplane."
"My airplane."

But that doesn't really determine who's the PIC for the flight. You can both log PIC time in your logbooks if you're both equally qualified. But it depends on the qualification and the task you're performing. Someone who isn't qualified to operate that aircraft can't be PIC. In the case of a flight review, the "instructor" is really only acting as a hired observer. They aren't operating as PIC, so your logbook should have PIC time with a description that it's a flight review and be signed by the instructor.

As a CAP Form 5 examination, which is different than flight instruction under Part 61 of the FARs, you technically don't even need to log it at all, but the student would essentially log it as PIC time since the instructor is reviewing your performance, not teaching you. If they do any "let me show you...whatever..." it can be considered instruction and you could have PIC/Dual Received time. Really, you should clock the Dual Received time since it isn't the entire flight that you're being instructed, maybe only 5 minutes, but most instructors will fill it in regardless.

In my case, I'm not a high-performance endorsed pilot. I can't fly the CAP 182 because I'm legally not qualified. If my Form 5 was to be used to conduct the Form 5 evaluation and sign me off as a high-performance endorsed pilot, I could not be PIC. The instructor would have to be PIC.

In most circumstances, regardless of who is logging what time, an instructor is usually regarded as the responsible person for a flight because when providing instruction or reviewing someone's performance, they are the subject matter expert for the ongoings of that flight, regardless of how many hours the student has logged previously. But they don't have to be PIC to be viewed by the NTSB, in the event of an investigation, as failing to maintain their responsibility as the instructor to ensure the pilot they are with performs safely. An instructor can literally cross his/her arms during an entire checkride and not say anything other than "demonstrate this..." and be considered the person responsible for that pilot flying. Yes, you do have 91.3 saying the PIC is the responsible authority, but that doesn't mean the NTSB wouldn't say otherwise after an accident or incident. You can both be legally liable.

An instructor, acting as an instructor/observer, should never sit back and let a pilot do whatever they want without taking note of everything that's going on and be ready to jump in if needed. That all comes with exercising judgment. It doesn't mean hover over the controls, but it doesn't mean keep your arms crossed and look out the window to your right the whole time.

[FalconHatTrick]

Here's what he says: "5) Guard the controls as if an applicant is a first time solo student.  I don't care if Fred has 10,000+ hours – today might be a very bad day for Fred...." 

As an instructor, let me help shed some light and leave enough on the bone for the other instructors to chime in.  I don't care if you have 10 hours or 10,000 hours. If I'm sitting in that right seat, I'm making sure you're not going to kill me.  Each instructor has their own way of "guarding" or "blocking" the controls.  Some do a better job at hiding it than others.  The main purpose of guarding /blocking the controls is to prevent you from doing something stupid like a unintentional spin, failure to flare, etc. I'll leave the whole PIC topic for another post, but at the end of the day, if you are an instructor in the airplane and something happens, the FAA will be looking to you asking what happened. I've had 10,000+ hour pilots almost kill me faster than a still wet ink private pilot.

At the end of the day, the instructor wants you to feel comfortable and in control of the airplane.  But when you are in a stall/spin situation, you don't have time to have "positive transfer of controls" and it simply becomes "my airplane".

[Panzerbjorn]

For a transfer of controls, you would have something along the lines of:
"I've got the airplane."
"You're airplane."
"My airplane."

You may want to change your habits towards:

"I have the flight controls"

FAA Examiners have been on a bit of a crusade because apparently there have been times when "I have the airplane" has been interpreted as saying they have control of the airplane when what they rally meant was that they have the traffic in sight.

But that doesn't really determine who's the PIC for the flight. You can both log PIC time in your logbooks if you're both equally qualified. But it depends on the qualification and the task you're performing. Someone who isn't qualified to operate that aircraft can't be PIC. In the case of a flight review, the "instructor" is really only acting as a hired observer. They aren't operating as PIC, so your logbook should have PIC time with a description that it's a flight review and be signed by the instructor.

In the case of a flight review, the "instructor" or "CFI" logs PIC under 14 CFR 61.51(e)(D)(3).

As a CAP Form 5 examination, which is different than flight instruction under Part 61 of the FARs, you technically don't even need to log it at all, but the student would essentially log it as PIC time since the instructor is reviewing your performance, not teaching you. If they do any "let me show you...whatever..." it can be considered instruction and you could have PIC/Dual Received time. Really, you should clock the Dual Received time since it isn't the entire flight that you're being instructed, maybe only 5 minutes, but most instructors will fill it in regardless.

Well, the student WOULD log PIC during a CAPF5 as sole manipulator of the controls.  The whole flight can be logged as Dual Received.  I have no doubt that you didn't only log Dual Received while your instructor was talking or demonstrating a maneuver during your student pilot days.

In my case, I'm not a high-performance endorsed pilot. I can't fly the CAP 182 because I'm legally not qualified. If my Form 5 was to be used to conduct the Form 5 evaluation and sign me off as a high-performance endorsed pilot, I could not be PIC. The instructor would have to be PIC.

Absolutely you'd be logging PIC.  You are rated for Airplane Single Engine Land.  High Performance is an endorsement, not a rating.  So while you are receiving your HP training, you're still able to log PIC as sole manipulator of the controls.  However, you are not able to ACT as PIC without your HP endorsement.

[TheSkyHornet]

Absolutely you'd be logging PIC.  You are rated for Airplane Single Engine Land.  High Performance is an endorsement, not a rating.  So while you are receiving your HP training, you're still able to log PIC as sole manipulator of the controls.  However, you are not able to ACT as PIC without your HP endorsement.

You're correct on that. I read through the FARs on that subject. If you're undergoing training to act as PIC, you can log PIC time.
61.51(e)(iv)(B)

Thanks for the clarification there.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Hope you do not mind me correcting grammar, but the following

"I've got the airplane."
"You're airplane."
"My airplane."

should be changed to

"I've got the airplane."
"Your airplane."
"My airplane."

since saying

"You're airplane." is like saying "You are airplane." which does not make sense.

The response to "You're airplane." is "Me airplane." which does not make sense in that context.

Ducking under the desk for the razzies I will get.

[Garibaldi]

Hope you do not mind me correcting grammar, but the following

"I've got the airplane."
"You're airplane."
"My airplane."

should be changed to

"I've got the airplane."
"Your airplane."
"My airplane."

since saying

"You're airplane." is like saying "You are airplane." which does not make sense.

The response to "You're airplane." is "Me airplane." which does not make sense in that context.

Ducking under the desk for the razzies I will get.

Dude...

I didn't correct the OP's grammar....oh, wait, I did. Darn it. Carry on.

[Flying Pig]

I prefer shorter. "My controls".  "Your controls".  "My controls"


When you get into actual instructing and something occurs where you need to take it fast first and foremost, you do.  Second, announce if not simultaneously.   Keep it short.   In the times I e actuaually had to take it during instruction, mainly in helicopters, it happens fast. 

[Robert Hartigan]

I think "guard the controls" means be alert, don't go for an airplane ride, be an active pilot ready to fly.

As for exchanging controls, the FAA actually recommends the below verbiage and procedure in all practical test standards. Last month, I was "counseled" to use the exact words on a checkride; no "my airplane, your airplane, my airplane," or anything except the exact words. I know it was a item on the examiner's "list" because I got a reassuring, "Nice exchange," once I was flying the airplane again after donning my hood.

From the PTS:
"Positive Exchange of Flight Controls
During flight training, there must always be a clear understanding between students and flight instructors of who has control of the aircraft. Prior to flight, a briefing should be conducted that includes the procedure for the exchange of flight controls. A positive three- step process in the exchange of flight controls between pilots is a proven procedure and one that is strongly recommended.

When the instructor wishes the student to take control of the aircraft, he or she will say, "You have the flight controls." The student acknowledges immediately by saying, "I have the flight controls." The flight instructor again says, "You have the flight controls." When control is returned to the instructor, follow the same procedure. A visual check is recommended to verify that the exchange has occurred. There should never by any doubt as to who is flying the aircraft."

[Flying Pig]

Yes... The PTS is so wonderful and formal. "You have the flight controls". "I have the flight controls" is all fun and games in a low stress controlled scenario.  The FAA loves their complete  sentences and of course, you do that exact thing on your checkride.  I can speak from experience that "I have the flight controls" goes right out the window under stress.  However "my controls" when barked under stress rolls right off your tongue.   I'm not advocating losing clarity but when I teach it's always "my controls". But do what your cfi and your DPE say to do at this point.

[TheSkyHornet]

Yes... The PTS is so wonderful and formal. "You have the flight controls". "I have the flight controls" is all fun and games in a low stress controlled scenario.  The FAA loves their complete  sentences and of course, you do that exact thing on your checkride.  I can speak from experience that "I have the flight controls" goes right out the window under stress.  However "my controls" when barked under stress rolls right off your tongue.   I'm not advocating losing clarity but when I teach it's always "my controls". But do what your cfi and your DPE say to do at this point.

True, but that's something good to practice under simulated emergencies or cases of manufactured stress, like unusual attitudes.

It's a natural reaction to just grab the controls, but if someone else already has them, you might make the situation worse. I've flown with other pilots who have had habits of wanting to grab at the yoke because they're so used to being the sole manipulator. It's the same reaction to a passenger in a car trying to step on the invisible brake.

Situational awareness is key.

[Flying Pig]

What I'm saying is cut out words.  "You Have the flight controls".  Instead "my controls".  Unless you really need to specify "you have" and that you are taking the "flight controls".  There is no information lost in cutting the unneeded words out but plenty to gain under real stress.

[sardak]

I just happen to be reading the NTSB  transcript of US Air Flight 1549, the "Miracle on the Hudson."

Preparing for takeoff
Capt Sullenberger, hot-mic 1 (HM1) " Your brakes, your aircraft."
First Officer Skiles HM2 "My aircraft."

15:27:10.4  HM1 - Birds
HM2 - Whoa
Sound of thumps and shuddering
HM2 - %$#@^
HM1 - Oh, yeah
Sound of engines spooling down
HM2 - Uh oh
-------------
HM1 - Both of 'em rolling back
HM1 - Ignition, start
HM1 - I'm starting the APU
HM1 - My aircraft
-------------
HM2 - Your aircraft
HM1 - Get the QRH (Quick Reference Handbook), loss of thrust on both engines
That exchange took 17.6 seconds.

They then start going through the checklist which basically wasn't helping, and for which they didn't have time to finish.

15:29:28 radio message to departure control - "We're going to be in the Hudson"

This classic at 15:30:21
HM1 - Got any ideas?
HM2 - Actually not.

15:30:43.7 recording stops.

During the testimony, there were questions as to whether they had thought about using the ditching checklist.

Mike

[JeffDG]

Absolutely you'd be logging PIC.  You are rated for Airplane Single Engine Land.  High Performance is an endorsement, not a rating.  So while you are receiving your HP training, you're still able to log PIC as sole manipulator of the controls.  However, you are not able to ACT as PIC without your HP endorsement.

You're correct on that. I read through the FARs on that subject. If you're undergoing training to act as PIC, you can log PIC time.
61.51(e)(iv)(B)

Thanks for the clarification there.

That's only true if you're rated for the aircraft (Category, Class, Type [if required]).

So, if you have ASEL and you're training for AMEL, you cannot log dual time as PIC (if you solo the multi, that's PIC time), but if you're working on an endorsement (HP, Complex, Tailwheel), you can.  Also, you can log PIC for sole manipulator time when training for your Instrument Rating.

[Live2Learn]

I just happen to be reading the NTSB  transcript of US Air Flight 1549, the "Miracle on the Hudson."

Preparing for takeoff
Capt Sullenberger, hot-mic 1 (HM1) " Your brakes, your aircraft."
First Officer Skiles HM2 "My aircraft."

15:27:10.4  HM1 - Birds
HM2 - Whoa
Sound of thumps and shuddering
HM2 - %$#@^
HM1 - Oh, yeah
Sound of engines spooling down
HM2 - Uh oh
-------------
HM1 - Both of 'em rolling back
HM1 - Ignition, start
HM1 - I'm starting the APU
HM1 - My aircraft
-------------
HM2 - Your aircraft
HM1 - Get the QRH (Quick Reference Handbook), loss of thrust on both engines

The essence of this exerpt (to me) is that at all times it was clear who was PIC (the Captain), and who was Pilot Flying (PF) (i.e. managing the controls).  From this example it appears that there was a clear, unambiguous exchange of controls AND the PIC was clearly known at the time the flight began.  Being the PIC, the Captain also fulfilled all of the administrative requirements of that position.  Both pilots (PIC and PF) were clearly spring loaded on takeoff and during the climb.  In that sense the Captain (PIC) was indeed "guarding the controls". 

An important point in this example provided by Sardak is that the flight was NOT a training flight.  Neither is a CAP checkride, nor is a BFR or IPC if the pilot in the left seat is current in the aircraft cat/class and operation.  This makes it even more important that the role and responsibilities of PIC be very clear well before engine start.  I think it's very important to have that conversation each time two pilots are within reach of the controls, regardless of whether a CAP checkride or otherwise. 

When was the last CAP check ride you gave or experienced, or flight with a CFI for a BFR where you had a conversation prior to entering the aircraft to establish clearly who was PIC, what PF meant, and how controls would be exchanged?

[scooter]

Way back when I was and Air Force IP and Check Pilot the rule#1 was " never let the student exceed your ability to recover". Having said that, even Instructor Pilots have a bad day sometimes.

[Cliff_Chambliss]

I feel a lot of this could be and should be addressed as part of the pre-takeoff briefing.  This is a specific crew briefing and not a general cabin brief.  Specifically I address:
1.  Nature of the flight:  route, altitudes, type (orientation, proficiency, checkride, expanding square, etc)
2.  Who Flies
3.  Who Navigates
4.  Who operates radios.
5.  Specific terminology for the exchange of controls.

EMERGENCIES:
5.  SIMULATED:
     repeat 2-4 as necessary
6.  Minimum altitudes.

ACTUAL:
     MY AIRPLANE;  I FLY
     OTHER PILOT:  ON THE APPLICABLE CHECKLIST.  Call off checklist items and action note I confirm action accomplished.
                            ON THE RADIOS 

I just want a very clear understanding between the two people in the pointy end of the airplane as to who is going to do what before the need arises.