Legal to Carry Passengers.....??

[Desert Strip Basher]

Can anyone here shed light on the debate in the private flying forum? You cannot act as PIC of a passenger-carrying aircraft if you haven't done three landings in the last 90 days.

So you somehow have to chalk up those landings, either as a solo pilot (PIC, but not carrying passengers) or in a position where you are not PIC, but you are the sole manipulator of the controls. This can be done with an instructor (he is PIC, you are PU/T) but, indeed, I can't find any legal reason why this cannot be with another current PPL (he is PIC, you are PAX but manipulating the controls). The assumption is that the ANO takes precedence over any requirement in Lasors. What is legal?

ANO States:

SCHEDULE 7
PART A
Flight crew licences
SECTION 1
United Kingdom Licences
SUB-SECTION 1
Aeroplane pilots

Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes)
Minimum age – 17 years
No maximum period of validity
Privileges:
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the holder of a Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes) is entitled to fly
as pilot in command or co-pilot of an aeroplane of any of the types or classes specified or otherwise
falling within an aircraft rating included in the licence.
(2) The holder may not—
[...]
(g) fly as pilot in command of such an aeroplane carrying passengers unless—
(i) within the preceding 90 days the holder has made at least three take-offs and three
landings as the sole manipulator of the controls of an aeroplane of the same type or
class; and
(ii) if such a flight is to be carried out at night and the licence does not include an
instrument rating (aeroplane), at least one of those take-offs and landings has been at
night.
Lasors states:
Carriage of Passengers
Pilots not operating in accordance with JAR-OPS
or EU-OPS’ are required to meet recent experience
criteria to carry passengers. A pilot shall not operate an
aeroplane or helicopter carrying passengers as pilot-in command
or co-pilot unless that pilot has carried out at
least three take-offs and three landings as pilot flying
(sole manipulator of the controls) in an aeroplane or
helicopter of the same type/class or flight simulator of the
aeroplane type/class or helicopter type to be used in the
preceding 90 days. If the flight is to be carried out in an
aeroplane at night, one of these take-offs and landings
must have been at night, unless a valid instrument rating is
held. If the flight is to be carried out in a helicopter at night,
3 take-offs and landings must have been at night, unless a
valid instrument rating (helicopters) is held.
A pilot who has not met the experience criteria above
will be required to complete the above requirements
either as Pilot-in-Command of aeroplanes/helicopters as
appropriate or with a flight instructor, providing that the
instructor does not influence the controls at any time. The
carriage of a safety pilot is not permitted to satisfy thisrequirement.

[SkyCamMK]

I think that your last line says it all - No - PPL not good enough as safety pilot

[bingofuel]

You cannot act as PIC of a passenger-carrying aircraft

Yes you can, but you cannot carry passengers.

If you are flying a single pilot aeroplane, another PPL is a passenger unless he holds an instructor/examiner qualification and is acting as the air craft commander and you are manipulating the controls as a pilot under training.

[Whopity]

I can't find any legal reason why this cannot be with another current PPL (he is PIC, you are PAX but manipulating the controls).

If you are PAX then you are not a Pilot and the requirement is:unless that pilot has carried out at least three take-offs and three landings as pilot flying (sole manipulator of the controls)

If you are the pilot flying, then the other person is a Passenger- Art 255‘Passenger’ means a person other than a member of the crew;You can't have a crew of two in an aircraft certified for single crew operation. So you either do your 3 take-offs and landings whilst 90 day current, with an instructor or solo.

[Golf-Sierra]

So you somehow have to chalk up those landings, either as a solo pilot (PIC, but not carrying passengers) or in a position where you are not PIC, but you are the sole manipulator of the controls. This can be done with an instructor (he is PIC, you are PU/T) but, indeed, I can't find any legal reason why this cannot be with another current PPL (he is PIC, you are PAX but manipulating the controls).


But why solo? Would this not also be satisfied if I had made the 3 landings in the 90 previous days carrying passengers (assuming I was current at that time)? I think the solo rule applies only if I lose the currency and want to regain it - since I cannot take passengers up with me how otherwise can I make the landings?

I think the logic might be that if you are flying a small aircraft intended for single pilot operation there can be one person operating the controls at a time. If you are a PAX you cannot manipulate controls. How would you even put it down in your logbook (PIC? P/UT? SIC?).

If you manipulate the controls I guess you become the PIC, and the other person becomes a PAX, which you are not legally allowed to carry (just because he's got a PPL doesn't mean he's not a PAX ;-) Can't have two PICs at the same time ;-) Of course if you fly something like e.g. an An-2 (which requires 2 crew) on your PPL you can solely manipulate the controls whilst not being the PIC - you can be SIC ;-)

I'm trying to find a reference which states when you can log PIC, P/UT, SIC time but haven't been able to.


Golf-Sierra

PS. By the time I managed to type this response (got distracted a bit by a phone call) a few other people posted more or less the same answer ;-) Has improved my confidence for when I need to take the air law exam ;-)

[S-Works]

The AN2 does not require 2 crew. It may have been operated as a multi crew aircraft in service but it is operated in civilian life as a single pilot aircraft. You also can't log SIC in it under JAA rules.

But that is a digression. When you are out of the 90 day currency you are not deemed current enough to carry a passenger. You have the opportunity to carry out the required landings solo to regain currency to make it easier for you. If you get it wrong you just take yourself out not a passenger.

if you do not feel capable of self renewing then you seek Instruction.

It can't be made much simpler.......

[Checkboard]

You can't have a crew of two in an aircraft certified for single crew operation.

Of course you can. Certified for single crew doesn't require single crew.

[Whopity]

Maybe, but unless the other person has an operating capacity, they can only be a passenger.

[athonite]

What if an instructor hasn't flown for the 90 days, can he/she then fly as pilot in command (P1) with another person as long as they are a student pilot (PUT)?

[Whopity]

Yes, because a crew member is not a passenger. However, one might question why an instructor exceeded 90 days without conducting at least 3 take offs and landings!

[mad_jock]

However, one might question why an instructor exceeded 90 days without conducting at least 3 take offs and landings!

Because his day job is not flying anything in that class and there roster might not allow them to use any of thier 100hours in 28 during the summer but come low season they have enough hours spare.

[Oktas8]

I wouldn't have said a student is a member of the flight crew, which means s/he can only be called a passenger in the context of 90-day currency. Would you really grant instructional privileges to a pilot who is legally un-current?

[athonite]

I think the 90 day rule is a classic example of a rule, like many which wasn't thought out. As to if anyone should be flying P1 after 90 days, I have known people who have passed FI renewals and IR renewals without having flown any type of aircraft in the previous twelve months, which means it is sometimes is possible remain competant. What simplistic rules like the 90 day rule doesn't take into account is the other factors such as total experience, and what other classes are being flown during the previous 90 days, etc.. I think the rule was directed at PPL's not flying within flying clubs, as most flying clubs prior to the 90 day rule, had sensible rules on recency.

The other question I have on the 90 day rule, what is the a definition of what constitutes three take off and landings, does it require a circuits or a departure? Or could you by prior arrangement with ATC on a very long runway do a takeoff, two touch and goes, and a land?

[S-Works]

I think the rule was directed at PPL's not flying within flying clubs, as most flying clubs prior to the 90 day rule, had sensible rules on recency.

It was aimed at PILOTS as a whole not just those not flying within club rules. It is a blanket measure to ensure that a minimum level of currency is maintained in order to carry passengers. I really fail to see why it encourages such argument all the time. It is very simple, if you think you are current enough to fly then you get in and fly the required landings. If you think you are not current enough to do this then you need to fly with an Instructor.

It is not rocket science!

[mad_jock]

I hadn't flown a SEP in 3 years when I renewed my class rating which I did I might add sitting in the right hand seat.

I was actually quite suprised how much of it was still programmed in and was almost automatic. But then again I have 900 hours in SEP in one year when I was a full time instructor to set me up for long periods not flying them.

Also switching between turbine types I can go 12months -18 months between flying different types and jump in and do an LPC (which is a IR test) and pass it with minimal debrief points.

Some pilots can, some can't, 90days is enough to catch the idiots who can't but don't know they can't , but long enough that it doesn't get silly and a pain in the bum for everyone. And it is sensible to allow folk to get current solo.
Personally i think they should change it to allow license holders (and that means pilots that are not qualified on class/type) to be onboard because they wil know the risk they are taking if outside 90days. Clueless pax nope leave them on the ground.

[athonite]

Yes but flying it's not just about rules, it's about a legal (UK) duty of care which is often overlooked!

[FlyingForFun]

What if an instructor hasn't flown for the 90 days, can he/she then fly as pilot in command (P1) with another person as long as they are a student pilot (PUT)? Yes, because a crew member is not a passenger. However, one might question why an instructor exceeded 90 days without conducting at least 3 take offs and landings!It happens to me quite regularly. Most of my flying is on MEPs, and I'm frequently out of 90-day currency on SEPs. On the occasions when I have to instruct in an SEP, I am legal to carry a student, since he is a member of the flight crew, but I may not carry a back-seat passenger. In fact, I was in exactly that situation earlier this week. (This is at an approved school, and the CAA inspectors are certainly happy with this interpretation of the rule.)

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

[BillieBob]

Why all the fuss? If you're not current you spend 15 minutes regaining currency - what's the big deal?

[athonite]

what fifteen minutes on the west coast of ireland you can land on three runways on three different islands within six minutes!

[FlyingForFun]

I'm glad you think a 15-minute flight isn't a problem.

As I said, earlier this week I was in a position where I was instructing (examining, actually) on an SEP, out of 90-day currency. My student - who, remember, was a paying customer of my company - was actually booked in for a different date, but requested to change the date of his flight to fit in with the forecast weather, so the flight happened at short notice, and I was the only suitably qualified examiner available to carry out the flight at short notice.

I work in an environment where I have to consider the following requirements:

- It takes 10 minutes to taxy from my parking to the holding point (at a sensible taxy speed)
- ATC delays can often mean anything up to 15 minutes, sometimes more, at the holding point before getting airborne
- ATC delays in the air can often mean 10 minutes per circuit spent orbiting
- On a busy day, my spare time is short enough that I'll eat my lunch whilst walking between the office and the ramp because it's the only chance I get. (It's either that, or cut down the length of my briefs/debriefs, which I'm not prepared to do. And I'm also not prepared to skip lunch!!!)
- I'm not prepared to pay for a currency flight myself - the amount it would cost me far exceeds the amount of money I'd loose by turning the flight down
- I wouldn't expect my boss to pay for anything that isn't required (whether by law, or in the interests of safety) - she has a business to run and can't afford to throw money away like that.

If I had taken the view that getting current was "not a big deal", the flight would not have gone ahead, my school's customer would not have been a happy customer, and the school would have potentially lost money.

The idea that a 15-minute flight is not a big deal might be very true for a PPL who has spare money to burn and is happy to burn that money and turn it into logbook hours, but the question has been posted in a forum for instructors, and it simply doesn't hold true when trying to run a business such as a flying school. You have to know what is legally allowed and what is not. When something is required, you make the time to do it. When it's not required, you don't.

Having said that, of course, safety is always the overriding factor, and if there is any reason to think that, in the specific circumstances, a currency flight would be a benefit, then yes of course you must do so.

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

[S-Works]

I am a little shocked and rather dismayed to read that post FFF. As examiners we have a responsibility to be beyond approach. This means following the regulation to the letter even if it does not suit us sometimes. We are also expected to follow the spirit of it as well.

What sort of example does your behaviour set to the candidate? Or is it a case of I am an examiner and therefore a skygod and the rules don't strictly apply to me but they do to joe bloggs?

[mad_jock]

Reality check Bose.

I think you will find CPL/IR instructors will be out of check with the 90 days and the spirit of the rules. Both SEP and MEP

My instructor never did a single landing in my course or any of the ones I backseated on. And I wouldn't at 300 quid an hour been to chuffed if he had stolen one to keep current.

I wouldn't be suprise if some of them the only landing they do per year as per the rule book is thier IR revalidation.

I used to go 30-40 days as a PPL instructor without doing an approach and landing. Numerous I have control at the bottom mind but only the ferry flights when the wx was ****e and I was sent off on my own did I actually fly the whole approach.

I really don't see an issue with it either, the crash mags arn't exactly full of instructors and examiners screwing up the landings.

[S-Works]

MJ, sorry, but its the not the point IMHO. The rules are not there for us as Instructors and Examiners to say 'do as I say not as I do'. We have a responsibility to be seen to be following the rules.

I make a point of staying current on each Class and Type Rating that I examine on otherwise how can I be seen to be fit to examine?

The rules apply to all of us and should not be ignored for expediency. In the example above if the flying school is profiting from the flying then they have a duty to ensure that their staff follow the rules.

It is in my companies standing order book that we must be current on Class or Type before a test and if needs be we are to go and fly the appropriate circuits. There have been a few occasions on some of the odder TP that I test on where I have had to fly the 3 before conducting the test.

Just my opinion.

[FlyingForFun]

As examiners we have a responsibility to be beyond approach. This means following the regulation to the letter even if it does not suit us sometimes.I totally agree, Bose. At what point did I suggest that I was doing anything other than following the regulations, or suggest that anyone else (instructor, examiner or otherwise) should do so?

What I was criticising was BillieBob's suggestion that it doesn't really matter if you don't understand the rules because you can ensure that you are always on the correct side of them by spending time and money. That is ok if you have time and money to spare, but in a business environment it is not acceptable to waste time and money because you don't understand the rules.

I have, on several occasions, flown instructional flights or examined in a class of aircraft for which I was not legal to carry passengers. This is completely legal. I have never carried a passenger under such circumstances, which would not have been legal. (In fact, I can think of at least one occasion when my boss suggested that I carry a passenger on an instructional flight - another of the school's students who would no doubt have benefited from back-seating the flight - but I had to refuse to carry the passenger because I was out of 90-day currency. That's no reason to not do the instructional flight though.)

On the other hand, if carrying passengers is required and you are out of currency, then clearly you have a legal duty to find the time/money to become current first. If your Flying Order Book mandates a particular level of currency, then you legally have to comply with that, too. And, regardless of the law or the Flying Order Book, if your lack of currency is sufficient as to cause doubt about your ability to conduct the flight safely, then you need to do whatever is necessary to get current again too. This applies to any pilot, whatever his qualifications - and I certainly don't consider myself to be either a skygod nor exempt from anything I've just said.

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

[mad_jock]

If we are now meaning proper current, 3 circuits makes cock all difference in the grand scale of things pax or not.

As most that are likely to be affected by this are exposed to aviation day in day out for our sins the real currency is just exposure to flying anything. The particular steed really doesn't matter its having the pilot "head" on that counts.

[BillieBob]

BillieBob's suggestion that it doesn't really matter if you don't understand the rulesI wish I had a vivid imagination like yours!!

[FlyingForFun]

Ok, fair point BillieBob. You said, in the context of a debate about clarifying the rules:Why all the fuss? ... What's the big deal? I'm happy to retract what I said, and to replace the word "suggestion" with "implication", which I feel will be more accurate! ;)

MJ, I agree in principle with most of what you're saying, I'd debate some of the finer points. This thread is about the law, though - I've put a few caveats about common-sense currency in my posts, but don't want to detract from the general thrust of the discussion about the rules. Maybe we need a new thread about what it means to actually remain current and safe in reality, as oposed to in law?

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