Does the 90 Day Rule Apply to Instructors?

[Whirlybird]

Apologies if this has come up before; if so, please give me a link to it...

The 90 day rule states that pilots need to have performed 3 take-offs and landings in the last 90 days in order to legally carry passengers (or 3 circuits for helicopter pilots).

I believe students, even trial lesson students, are classified as crew, not passengers....please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

If this is so, the 90 day rule should not apply to instructors conducting lessons (unless they put a passenger in the back as well of course)

Is this the case? I keep being challenged on it, but it makes logical sense to me. Don't tell me it doesn't make sense in terms of common sense or safety; that's not what I'm asking.

[Whopity]

The 90 day rule applies to all pilots carrying passengers but as you correctly say, crew members i.e. students are not passengers if occupying a pilot seat. Its not a case of instructors being exempt, they are not; but if they are not carrying passengers, the rule does not apply. Article 255‘Passenger’ means a person other than a member of the crew;

[Whirlybird]

Thanks for that. Now I just need to convince flying school owners who always think they're right.....

[Whopity]

Now I just need to convince flying school owners who always think they're right.....Just tell them that if the person you are carrying is a "passenger" and they have paid for the flight, its illegal public transport!

[FlyingStone]

Little bit off topic (or not): is a friend seating in RHS (on aircraft with dual controls of course) with valid licence and rating (but not FI) a crew member or a passenger?

[mad_jock]

passenger its doesn't matter if they are a safety pilot while your flying under the hood. (This is different under the FAA system)

[DFC]

Just tell them that if the person you are carrying is a "passenger" and they have paid for the flight, its illegal public transport!


They are not paying for the flight. They are paying for the flight training. That is a very important principle which is currently preventing the host of "flight voucher" organisations being closed down - they are selling a lesson (call it a trial lesson if you want) and that lesson takes place during a flight.

If one can't even meet the 3 in 90 day then one should not be teaching someone else who is not qualified to operate the aircraft as PIC.

Flying School Owners are quite right to demand not just this but a higher standard of their flight instructors.

[Whopity]

They are not paying for the flight. They are paying for the flight training.Either way, such a payment is "for the purpose of the flight" however, the example above is simply to illustrate that someone on a "trial lesson" is a crew member and not a passenger, and what the consequences would be if they were a paying passenger.

I agree that an instructor who has not done a take off and landing in the last 90 days should not be instructing; but that was not the issue. Instructors involved in "trial lessons" will in most cases have done plenty of take offs and landings.

[Whirlybird]

Thank you Whopity.

I had a good reason for asking this question...I'd appreciate people not trying to work out what it was, taking a possible answer, and running with it!

[RTN11]

What about those trial lessons where you carry the student's friend in the back?

Or for that matter, any student who halfway through the course wants to start taking their Mum in the back, since she's paying for all the training?

Does that make all the flight illegal since the mother has effectively paid for that seat? When the lesson is a land away, that's effectively public transport.

[BillieBob]

What about those trial lessons where you carry the student's friend in the back?Such a flight is not public transport because no payment is made for the carriage of the passenger. The test is to ask "Would this flight take place if the person was not carried?" to which the answer is clearly "Yes". The only payment made was for the instructional flight, which would take place whether or not Mum was in the back.

[DFC]

Dual Training.

Please tell me what qualifies Mr J Public to be a member of the flight crew?

or

What part of the flight crew is Mr J Public when they have done nothing other than board the aircraft and sit on their hands while the pilot does everything - with a few explanations.

Remember that there is no requirement for a student to handle the controls during an exercise. They may simply sit there, observe and learn.

JAR-FCL presents a very clear picture - Basic Qualification for flight crew.

Annex 1 says the same as JAR-FCL.

The UK ANO is less clear and while it may exempt peopel in certain cases from the requirement to be qualified before farming part of the flight crew, it does not confer flight crew status on a person sitting in an aircraft during flight with an instructor who teaches them say the 1 in 60 rule.

The ICAO Annex 1 and JAR-FCL definition of dual training is quite significant.

I would not like to be in a situation where Mr J Public could turn round after an accident and stick their nose up at the £1 million insurance payout for flight crew because by being a passenger they get £5 million.

So ask yourself, when you fly with a brand new student (or even an established one), what defines them as a member of the flight crew. being present in the aircraft with an instructor is not suficient.

Therefore, aside from the issue that an instructor has to be suficently current to not only be legal but to be able to accurately demonstrate to the required standard, 3 take-off and landings in the past 90 days would be at the poorer end and could be an example of lack of attention to the good ole duty of care - i.e. can't be bothered doing a bit of practice before taking the public up.

[BillieBob]

Since we are talking about a UK legal requirement (the 90 day rule), neither ICAO Annex 1 nor JAR-FCL is relevant as neither of them sets down UK law.

The ANO 2009 is the only relevant document and Article 50(1) states:

Subject to the exceptions set out in articles 51 to 60, a person must not act as a
member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom without
holding an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under this Order.

The relevant exemption in this case is Article 53(1), which states:

A person may act as pilot of an aircraft of which the flight crew required to be carried
by or under this Order is not more than one pilot for the purpose of becoming qualified
for the grant or renewal of a pilot's licence or the inclusion or variation of any rating in
a pilot's licence within the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man,
without being the holder of an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under this
Order

A 'trial lesson' is a part of the PPL course and may be counted towards the dual flight instruction required for the issue of that licence. Mr J Public, who is (in law) in the aircraft for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot's licence, can act as a pilot of the aircraft (i.e. a member of the crew).

Consequently, the answer to the question "Please tell me what qualifies Mr J Public to be a member of the flight crew?" is "Articles 50 and 53 of the ANO 2009".