[FlarePath]

Ok, thats how you want to read it, but your overthinking this and muddying the water a bit. It really is an excellent change that has made life a lot easier for a lot of pilots who just want a mate to go flying with who they trust...and not consider them anything other..

[TopCat]

Ok, thats how you want to read it, but your overthinking this and muddying the water a bit. It really is an excellent change that has made life a lot easier for a lot of pilots who just want a mate to go flying with who they trust...and not consider them anything other..

Why would you need a mate that you trust, to go flying with, if you're rusty. Trust to do what? Make a judgement about safety and tell you about it? Without discussing it beforehand?

Sorry - if you have to trust him, possibly to do or say something (and if so then a CRM discussion beforehand would be good airmanship), then he's not 'just a passenger'!

[Crash one]

This exemption does not imply that the pilot in the "other" seat may act as any form of instructor.
He/she is "allowed" as a PASSENGER. Nothing else. Probably based on the fact that a pilot will appreciate the extra risk better than a "civilian.
If the out of currency pilot screws up and they crash, the out of currency pilot is responsible. It is not a training flight.
It is a flight made by the out of currency pilot for no other purpose than to go for a bacon butty.
If he does it three times, his choice of passenger is widened as he is now current!
Jesus H Christ. No wonder we get gold plating. We are doing it ourselves!!

[GrahamB]

In the real world, a glib "ah the extra pilot is just a passenger" is just a fudge, and one that obscures actual risks.

In the real world, doesn't that risk exist any time two pilots fly together, particularly if there is an experience gradient between the two?

[TopCat]

In the real world, a glib "ah the extra pilot is just a passenger" is just a fudge, and one that obscures actual risks.

In the real world, doesn't that risk exist any time two pilots fly together, particularly if there is an experience gradient between the two?

Yes, excellent point.

All the more reason for two pilots that fly together to make sure they're clear about who's PIC, and what input if any they expect from the other during the flight.

It doesn't have to be a 20 page contract written in legalese - just a brief conversation and an understanding. But still better to have the conversation beforehand, rather than risk a misunderstanding in the air.

[dont overfill]

Jesus H Christ. No wonder we get gold plating. We are doing it ourselves!!

"Would you like the five minute argument or the ten minute argument?"
(Thanks Monty Python. )
Geeze. Some folk must be having a quiet day at work!

[Crash one]

I was in exactly this position a few weeks ago. Last flight 2 Sep 17. Flew 27 Feb 18 with a pilot who has an identical aircraft and is current on it. No advice asked for, none given, on landing he remarked, " well, you haven't forgot much".
Though I do understand the "moral support" ? thing.

[mo0g]

In the real world, a glib "ah the extra pilot is just a passenger" is just a fudge, and one that obscures actual risks.

In the real world, doesn't that risk exist any time two pilots fly together, particularly if there is an experience gradient between the two?

Yes, excellent point.

All the more reason for two pilots that fly together to make sure they're clear about who's PIC, and what input if any they expect from the other during the flight.

It doesn't have to be a 20 page contract written in legalese - just a brief conversation and an understanding. But still better to have the conversation beforehand, rather than risk a misunderstanding in the air.

I would guess that this is hardly ever in any doubt, not least because any doubt would likely be addressed when they came to sit in the left & right seats!?

Has anyone been on a flight with another pilot, in the right seat, and thought they were PIC in the absence of any prior agreement or conversation?

[TopCat]

Has anyone been on a flight with another pilot, in the right seat, and thought they were PIC in the absence of any prior agreement or conversation?

I'm sure the answer to this would be 'no'.

Here's another question:

Has anyone sitting in the RHS observed the PIC doing something potentially unsafe, and felt awkward about saying something, or how to say it, in the absence of any prior agreement or conversation?

[T67M]

Would I fly as pax with an out-of-currency average/unknown PPL? No.

I do fly with them as P1 from the RHS under the privileges of my CRI rating having been trained to do so, and I do have to take control to save embarrassment, damage and/or death on occasions.

[Aerials]

Put very simply, the person in the rh seat is not only Qualified and current but more importantly, fully informed as to any possible risk to their person.

[neaton]

Of course, reading the CAA document, it would appear to be perfectly legal for the passenger-pilot to be sitting in the back seat of a C172...

<Wanders away, whistling innocently>

[Crash one]

Of course, reading the CAA document, it would appear to be perfectly legal for the passenger-pilot to be sitting in the back seat of a C172...

<Wanders away, whistling innocently>

Yes, perfectly legal. What point are you making?

[neaton]

Point? There has to be a point? Did I miss a memo?

[TopCat]

Of course, reading the CAA document, it would appear to be perfectly legal for the passenger-pilot to be sitting in the back seat of a C172...

.... and having a little snooze, paying no attention whatsoever to the flight.

After all, it's just a mate, he didn't get much sleep last night - but that bacon butty will perk him up when they get there.

<legs it at high speed, humming a merry tune and making no point whatsoever>