3 in 90

[THAI TUN]

Does a JAA instructor have to have done 3 landings in the previous 90 days in the same class or type before carrying out an instructional flight with a student? Or is the student not a 'passenger' but a 'crew member'?

THAI TUN

[18greens]

Its my understanding that instructors are not absolved the
3 in 90 rule.

I further understand that it needs to be 3 take offs and landing where you have complete hands on control of the aircraft, not just logging P1 watching a student do it. Unless you get your lesson 3s in on a regular basis you could fall foul, especially in winter.

[BEagle]

TT - Technically the student is a 'crew member' and the 3 in 90 doesn't apply.

[FlyingForFun]

BEagle, do you have a reference for that? The instructors I've spoken to about it seem to be split on whether this is, in fact, the case.

But even if we agree we can carry students without meeting the 3/90 rule, let's also agree that if you do a lesson in a 4-seat aircraft with "passengers" in the back, then you must meet the requirements for carrying passengers..... correct?

FFF
-----------

[homeguard]

The '3 in 90' rules indeed refer to the 'carriage of passengers'!

A 'student' is not a passenger. Nor - it must be said - may passengers be carried unless it is a 'private flight' or is a 'public transport flight' when an AOC is required. Instructing is 'Ariel work' but is subject to exemptions from an AOC requiement for the giving of instruction to fellow club members. Any additional persons carried must be part of the lesson.

[18greens]

Interesting.

So, if I, as an instructor, need to ferry a plane with another instructor and neither of us have flown for 90 days we can do it if one logs P1 and the other logs PUT BUT we can't do it if one logs P1 and the other travels as a passenger.

[homeguard]

You could also pay the bill in bent fivers!

Like so many laws, the original intention is not always in line with 'common sense' but is a requirement of commitees to finish on time. Much of JAA/JAR for GA is simply a result of that simple fact. But there is a problem;

Law creates more criminals than it solves crime. Legislators would do well to always keep that in mind!

[NotamCheck]

From LASORS

CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS "...unless that pilot has carried out at least three take-offs and three landings as pilot flying (sole
manipulator of the controls)..."

This is repeated many time through out the book with no exceptions for instructors (nothing found in Section H at least).

The one take-off and landing at night is not required for teaching as a pupil is not a passenger. Although if the pupil has a friend in the back then usual passenger carrying rules apply.

[Whopity]

"Like so many laws, the original intention is not always in line with 'common sense' but is a requirement of commitees to finish on time. Much of JAA/JAR for GA is simply a result of that simple fact."


In this case it has nothing to do with JAA committees; it is a direct copy from FAA regulations: FAR 61.57

[homeguard]

Whopity

All JAR's are decided on by JAA Commitees.

Public Transport requirements were considered in some detail before time ran out. GA was rushed through at the tail end. If as you say the regulation being debated here is a direct lift from the FAR's, then you strengthen the point.

[Whopity]

In the main JAR-FCL 1 is based on FAR61. The JAA committee work largely centered on the differences which individual states wanted. They may well have run out of time but much of the so called nonsense they are credited with required no thought or debate, its simply FAA regulation transposed. If it doesn't make sense lets blame the Feds, they wrote it.