Flying with passengers rule....

[agnewdarren]

Regarding taking passengers, I know that I have to have done 3 takeoffs and landings as sole manipulator within 90 days, if it's under P2 and the instructor hasn't touched the controls, does that mean that I was the sole manipulator?? Or does it refer to solo flight? Sorry, dumb newbie here!!!

[foxmoth]

if it's under P2 Think you mean Pu/t, no P2 for SEP in the UK, and yes the 3 landings count OK.:ok:

[agnewdarren]

Told you I was a moron!! Haha thanks for your help.

[RTN11]

Firstly why didn't you just ask your instructor rather than an anonymous board?

Secondly, yes as long as you were indeed sole manipulator of the controls, it doesn't matter who was P1.

The law is the three take off and landings in the last 90 days (touch and gos will do) but most flying clubs won't hire an aircraft to you if you haven't flown in the last 28 days.

[archbishop]

I posted a similar question a few months back. It's whether or not you were the "sole manipulator of the controls" that matters. Can be logged as p1, p.u/t or p1/s:

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/488524-question-carrying-passengers.html

[foxmoth]

Firstly why didn't you just ask your instructor rather than an anonymous board?

At 9:16pm I would not think his instructor would be easily available!

[BackPacker]

Can be logged as p1, p.u/t or p1/s:

Does anybody know chapter and verse about whether it can be done as SNY (supernumerary) too?

I'm thinking about the situation where your PPL mate, who is acting as PIC (so you are just a passenger) is confident and gentle enough to let you handle the controls during take-off and landing.

Technically you are the "sole manipulator of the controls" so things should count, but since you have no crew function, nothing should go in your logbook - except possibly an SNY line.

[RTN11]

Firstly why didn't you just ask your instructor rather than an anonymous board?
At 9:16pm I would not think his instructor would be easily available!

I meant at the time of the flight. Anyway, most of my students have my number, not unusual to get a random text with a question from time to time.

[Level Attitude]

Can be logged as p1, p.u/t or p1/s:

NO - You are Pu/t

You are not allowed to carry passengers because you do not have the required currency.
You cannot be P1 with someone else on board (whether under supervision or not).

For Single Crew Aircraft P1/s is only used for a successful flight test with an Examiner
(or certain flying during integrated courses).

[Rod1]

“You cannot be P1 with someone else on board (whether under supervision or not).”

What!!!

Rod1

[archbishop]

What does your operating capacity have to do with currency in terms of the 90 day rule? You could still be legal but have logged your most recent flight as p.u/t if for example it was a club check ride if you haven't flown in the last 28 days. Provided you were sole manipulator of the controls, which would have to be the case to pass the check ride, legally this could be counted.

[RTN11]

Can be logged as p1, p.u/t or p1/s:
NO - You are Pu/t

You are not allowed to carry passengers because you do not have the required currency.
You cannot be P1 with someone else on board (whether under supervision or not).

You could easily be P1 flying solo for three landings, then stop and pick up the passengers. There was no implication that you'd be carrying passengers while flying the three take off and landings that you need in order to carry passengers

[stevelup]

Eh? That's exactly what he said!

Your flight could have been logged as P1/S if it was a successful test
P/UT if you were with an instructor
P1 if you were on your own

Apart from the interesting question Backpacker posed, there's no other way of logging the flight - so I don't understand the discussion!

[RTN11]

Although you could go up with a mate and fly the 3 take off and landings, since nothing goes in the logbook you'd have a hard time proving you were current after a crash.

[VP-F__]

Does anybody know chapter and verse about whether it can be done as SNY (supernumerary) too?

I'm thinking about the situation where your PPL mate, who is acting as PIC (so you are just a passenger) is confident and gentle enough to let you handle the controls during take-off and landing.

Technically you are the "sole manipulator of the controls" so things should count, but since you have no crew function, nothing should go in your logbook - except possibly an SNY line.

Not in this example, you can either fly P1 with nobody else onboard or Pu/t with an instructor. You cannot do this with a PPL mate because while you are flying he/she is technically a passenger because he/she does not have the relevant qualifications to be otherwise.

[BackPacker]

VP, that's my point. The requirement is just to be "sole manipulator of the controls". Nowhere does it specify that you have to be a crew member of some sort, so you can manipulate the controls while being a passenger. And fulfill the requirements of the 90-day rule that way.

RTN, you can log this as SNY if you want to. The regs only specify which *must* go in the logbook, not which *may* go in the logbook. As long as you don't make false representations, so don't add it up in the "total time" column for instance.

[Andy_20]

P/UT i believe is only when you are on test (for example) and fail something. For everything else you are dual, unless you are on your own.

[BillieBob]

You are confusing P/UT and P1/US. P/UT and 'dual' are the same thing. Incidentally, of these three terms only 'dual' has any meaning under Part-FCL.

[MrAverage]

Pu/t is for any flight with an instructor during which you receive instruction of any kind, not just a failed test.
Little known fact is that, if you do your 3 with an instructor, passengers may not be carried.

[taxistaxing]

Does anybody know chapter and verse about whether it can be done as SNY (supernumerary) too?

I'm thinking about the situation where your PPL mate, who is acting as PIC (so you are just a passenger) is confident and gentle enough to let you handle the controls during take-off and landing.



I can see a few issues with this.

Firstly, assuming its an SEP (single crew), and your mate is not a flying instructor, you cannot log any time for the flight. You can obviously write whatever you want in you logbook (it's your property) but for CAA purposes, 'dual' time in a SEP means nothing. As RTN11 says you'd therefore have a hard time evidencing the flight and the landings.

Secondly (again assuming your mate is not a flying instructor) either you or he is going to be flying the aircraft from the right hand seat which presumably you have not been trained to do.

You might also run into insurance issues. In my flying club the only people allowed to fly the aircraft are group members, who have been checked out by a group instructor. If I let a mate take control there would be a very sticky situation if he bent the plane. I'd have a choice of either committing insurance fraud by pretending I was flying at the time, or admitting that he was in which case the insurance would not pay up.

The best bet if you're outside of 90 days is probably to go up with an instructor, or just bite the bullet and do three solo circuits (although the rule is there for a reason - flying is a perishable skill and currency is vital).

[flybymike]

Little known fact is that, if you do your 3 with an instructor, passengers may not be carried.
Why should that be the case if the instructor is P1 and fully current for passengers?

[Talkdownman]

Little known fact is that, if you do your 3 with an instructor, passengers may not be carried
Where is the definitive reference for this, please?

[Torque Tonight]

I disagree with VP-F et al. If I am am out of currency for the 90 day rule, but otherwise correctly licensed, it would be perfectly correct for me to fly with another pilot, who was fully current, and for him to hand over control and allow me to make three landings as sole manipulator of the controls, thus regaining my currency. He remains PIC throughout and at no time am I PIC with a passenger whilst out of currency. Him handing over control to me does not make me PIC and him a passenger - he's the captain throughout, and to pre-empt the next argument, he does not need to be an instructor to hand over control to another person. I would record such a flight in my logbook as SNY, the times would not count towards any totals but my landings would count to requalify me.

That's the way I understand it unless EASA have changed absolutely everything.

[flybymike]

flying is a perishable skill and currency is vital.
I recall a case a few years ago of an ex pilot who took up flying again after a break of more than 30 years.
He was pleasantly surprised to have been able to take off, fly a circuit and land again with no physical assistance at all from the instructor.

[mad_jock]

its rubbish you wont find a reference.

If the instructor is out on class for three landings you cant but if they are in its fine.

As for none instructors doing the bumps as pic again there is no problem either. Group insurance can detail none instructors as named check pilots for the purposes of the group only.

To be honest the named ppl check pilots that i know have way more clue about checking a pilot out than a sub 200 hour knubnut zero to hero restricted instructor.

[flybymike]

I disagree with VP-F et al. If I am am out of currency for the 90 day rule, but otherwise correctly licensed, it would be perfectly correct for me to fly with another pilot, who was fully current, and for him to hand over control and allow me to make three landings as sole manipulator of the controls, thus regaining my currency. He remains PIC throughout and at no time am I PIC with a passenger whilst out of currency. Him handing over control to me does not make me PIC and him a passenger - he's the captain throughout, and to pre-empt the next argument, he does not need to be an instructor to hand over control to another person. I would record such a flight in my logbook as SNY, the times would not count towards any totals but my landings would count to requalify me.

That's the way I understand it unless EASA have changed absolutely everything.
This scenario is popularly believed to be legal and indeed may well be so even if not in the spirit of the regulations.
It could of course be made fully legal by specifically authorising the use of a licenced pilot as well as an instructor as a passenger for regaining landing currency. Of course that would just be too helpful. I mean why take a fellow group member pilot who is fully current and familiar with the aircraft when you can take an instructor who may never have flown the type at all:rolleyes:
Edit.
As ever Jock has summed it up far more eloquently than me above:ok:

[Torque Tonight]

FBM,

The 'spirit' of the regulations is largely an irrelevance. The letter of the law, not the spirit of the law is what matters, and in fact I'm not sure that the spirit of the regulations really does oppose this. You would after all have a valid class rating and would not be acting as PIC with pax while out of landing currency. Flying with a fellow (landings current) group member is quite reasonable.

You can after all achive the same thing flying solo, and no-one is suggesting you should have to carry an instructor for that.

[robin]

I would record such a flight in my logbook as SNY, the times would not count towards any totals but my landings would count to requalify me.


An interesting interpretation of the rules

Are you saying that you can't count the hours as he is PIC, but you can count the landings as you are sole manipulator of the controls, even though he is still PIC and you aren't able to carry a passenger as you are out of currency?

[mad_jock]

Come on its been going on for years and years.

Is there a huge number of crashes because of it?

no there isn't otherwise the insurance companys would ban it in policys and there would be a ANO reg saying you couldn't.

The fact that some don't like the idea is neither here nor there.

If instructors wern't up thier own backsides and realised that if you give a fun lesson which also gives value to the punter people don't mind splashing an extra twenty for your services. And using a mate is never even thought about.

Thats it robin and there is no legal problem with that.

I can be out on SEP 90 day rule as an instructor and still take a student up because they are counted as crew but couldn't take a pax in the back. its the same with night currency as well if you don't have an IR.

[Torque Tonight]

Robin. Absolutely. If you're not PIC, you cannot record the time as PIC (or anything else in a single pilot aeroplane unless you're with an instructor or examiner). The landings however do count as long as you are sole manipulator of the controls. Your operating capacity (PIC, Pu/t, etc) is not relevant and hence is not even referred to in the regs.

Flights in which I have had control, and which I wish to keep a record of, but which do not fit into the usual operating capcity categories, get logged as SNY: supernumerary crew.

SNY is defined in regulations, and would seem to apply to such circumstances, amongst others. SNY time does not count towards flying time totals - for me the time goes in one of the 'other' columns just for the record. I also have to use SNY at work on some occassions, but that's another story.

[mad_jock]

I use SNY at work when doing line check's in the jump seat. I didn't used to log it as anything but the local flight ops inspector got his knickers in a twist about it and wanted it logged as something so I couldn't fiddle ftls or something like that. Not worth arguing about so i just do it.

[MrAverage]

GM1 FCL.060(b)(1) Recent experience

[BabyBear]

An interesting take on the rules that could have saved me inconvenience and £ss in the past and mroe importantly may do in the future. How does the law view said pilot, acting as PIC, allowing a passenger to take off and land the aircraft? Presumably if it went tits up on landing the PIC would be the responsible party albeit he was not actually doing the flying? BB

[Level Attitude]

Thank you Mr A for providing a reference which is:
AMC1 FCL.060(b)(1) Recent experience When a pilot needs to carry out one or more flightswith an instructor or an examiner to comply with the requirement ofFCL.060(b)(1) before the pilot can carry passengers, the instructor or examineron board those flights will not be considered as a passenger.

GM1 FCL.060(b)(1) Recent experience AEROPLANES, HELICOPTERS, POWERED-LIFT, AIRSHIPS AND SAILPLANES If a pilot or a PIC is operating under the supervision of an instructor to comply with therequired three take-offs, approaches and landings, no passengers may be onboard

Original question on this thread was how should this flight be recorded.
Looks like Instructor P1 and Pilot Pu/t (P1/s NOT being available). But could possibly be interpreted as if the Instructor "wasn't really there ie pretend solo" and hence Pilot records P1 and Instructor records nothing.

Another quote:
ANO 2012
50 (1) Subject to paragraph(2), a person must not act as a pilot of an EASA aircraft that is registered in the United Kingdom without holding an appropriate licence granted, converted or rendered valid under the EASA AircrewRegulation.


So no, you cannot regain passenger carrying currency flying with "your mate" as PIC. If you are acting as a pilot then you are neither Pax nor SNY so you must be a crew member: but in single crew aircraft there is only one Pilot so you would have to be P1 which makes them a Pax (which they are not allowed to be)

Just get current solo if you are happy you are still competent, or with an Instructor if you feel you need some pointers. Anything else seems silly, and potentially litigious.


As for none instructors doing the bumps as pic again there is no problem either. Group insurance can detail none instructors as named check pilots for the purposes of the group only.

To be honest the named ppl check pilots that i know have way more clue about checking a pilot out than a sub 200 hour knubnut zero to hero restricted instructor.

MJ:
I would agree that named PPL Check Pilots are excellent at checking the flying skills of group members. But this does pre-suppose both checker and checkee are legal (though maybe not profficient) on the aircraft.
In the "Pax Carrying Currency" context of this thread the checkee would not be legal to be P1. Even if the 3 x Take/Offs - Landings were acceptable, the Checker (as P1) would have to pay 1/2 the cost of the flight - would you do this?

[Torque Tonight]

Reference your ANO2012 quote, you do of course hold a valid licence, and a valid class rating so you are fully entitled to act as a pilot. Being out of currency for the 90 day rule does not invalidate your licence.

Furthermore, being PIC means taking final responsibilty for the operation of an aircraft. It does not mean doing everything yourself at all times. Being PIC does not stop by handing over control. 50% of the time an airline captain is PIC without having personal hands-on control of the aircraft.

[Whopity]

you do of course hold a valid licence, and a valid class rating so you are fully entitled to act as a pilot.But not valid to carry passengers because that requires 90 currency.Being PIC does not stop by handing over control.No, but the pilot flying must have an operating capacity. It can't be dual unless the other pilot is an instructor. It could be P1, but that would legally render the other pilot a passenger because its a single pilot aircraft. Art 25550% of the time an airline captain is PIC without having personal hands-on control of the aircraft.Yes, but that is in an aircraft certified for two pilots which brings P2 into the equation.

The only options have been stated quite clearly at the beginning of this thread.

[VP-F__]

I disagree with VP-F et al. If I am am out of currency for the 90 day rule, but otherwise correctly licensed, it would be perfectly correct for me to fly with another pilot, who was fully current, and for him to hand over control and allow me to make three landings as sole manipulator of the controls, thus regaining my currency. He remains PIC throughout and at no time am I PIC with a passenger whilst out of currency. Him handing over control to me does not make me PIC and him a passenger - he's the captain throughout, and to pre-empt the next argument, he does not need to be an instructor to hand over control to another person. I would record such a flight in my logbook as SNY, the times would not count towards any totals but my landings would count to requalify me.


Only if the other pilot is an examiner or instructor valid on type/class :ugh:

I can be out on SEP 90 day rule as an instructor and still take a student up because they are counted as crew but couldn't take a pax in the back. its the same with night currency as well if you don't have an IR.

MJ whether or not you are an instructor is irrelevant, if you are out of 90 day currency you have to regain it before flying with anyone else on board except an examiner or instructor.

[mad_jock]

If the person is a student and you are flying under the umbrella of a lesson the student is classed as crew not pax.

And if I was the checker no I wouldn't.

But then we are into the territory of shifting a plane for a mate and not paying anything. Which is fine for us commercial holders but very grey for a ppl.

[Torque Tonight]

Only if the other pilot is an examiner or instructor valid on type/class :ugh:
No, VP, because you are not receiving instruction, and you are not acting as PIC while carrying passengers. Manipulting controls does not automatically equal being in command and neither does it equal instruction. Being out of 90 day currency whilst having valid licences and ratings does not prevent you from acting as pilot. The PIC obviously would have to be 90 day current in order to carry you.

[BabyBear]

Being PIC does not stop by handing over control.

I don't know that it permits ahnding over to a passenger to take off and land? Which by defenition the RHS occpupant must be other wise he would be flying illegally.

Being out of 90 day currency whilst having valid licences and ratings does not prevent you from acting as pilot.

It doesn't, but not being current stops you from carrying passengers, so if you take on the role of pilot that (as there can only be one pilot) renders the other guy a passenger.


BB

[Torque Tonight]

You seem to equate having hands on the controls as being PIC. That is not automatically true. Who signed for the aircraft?

[BabyBear]

TT, is your question to me? I have no such confusion. I refer back to the legality of the PIC letting a 'passenger' take off and land. I can't see it being technically feasible according to the law.

It certainly wouldn't be acceptable with someone without flying experience.


BB

[BackPacker]

I've been searching for this a bit further, and under EASA the rule has changed. The phrase "sole manipulator of the controls" is no longer there. Instead, the full article is:

FCL.060 Recent experience
[...]
(b) Aeroplanes, helicopters, powered-lift, airships and sailplanes. A pilot shall not operate an aircraft in commercial air transport or carrying passengers:
(1) as PIC or co-pilot unless he/she has carried out, in the preceding 90 days, at least 3 take-offs, approaches and landings in an aircraft of the same type or class or an FFS representing that type or class. The 3 take-offs and
landings shall be performed in either multi-pilot or single-pilot operations, depending on the privileges held by the pilot; and

So the phrase has been changed into "...carried out..." and that would suggest not just manipulating the controls, but actually being in command.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:311:0001:0193:EN:PDF

(And for reference, the quotes from LA are not the actual EU regulation, but are the accepted means of compliance and guidance materials. That document can be found here: http://easa.europa.eu/agency-measures/docs/agency-decisions/2011/2011-016-R/AMC%20and%20GM%20to%20Part-FCL.pdf

Both documents should ideally be read together, but for some reason EASA doesn't present them as such. Heck, even the font type is different.)

[Level Attitude]

You seem to equate having hands on the controls as being PIC. That is not automatically true. Who signed for the aircraft?

Ok TT I'll bite:

I hope you will accept that someone who is operating an aircraft - particularly
as "sole manipulator of the controls" during Take Off, Approach and Landing
is acting as a Pilot. Lets call them "Pilot Flying".

Even though they cannot legaly carry passengers you are saying this doesn't matter as the
person sitting next to them is actually the "Pilot In Command".

In this situation there are, by your reasoning, two Pilots on board:
"Pilot Flying" and "Pilot In Command"

But in single-pilot operations there cannot be two pilots. In this case
"PF" and "PIC" have to be the same individual. Therefore whoever is the
(one) pilot has to be legal for all aspects of the flight because the
other person on board is just a passenger.

AMC1 FCL.060(b)(1) Gives two specific exemptions to this:
PIC is an Instructor or PIC is an Examiner.
There is no exemption given for PIC is a valid License Holder.

If the PF cannot take passengers then they have to fly solo (PIC themselves) or fly with an Instructor or Examiner as PIC.

"Highly experienced and capable pilot wants to go on a trip with a friend, and fly the return leg, but has only done two Take Offs and Landings in preceeding 90 days (due weather, holidays, etc). So friend flies to destination, lands, then hands control to experienced pilot to initiate a take off, fly a circuit and land. Experienced pilot now relying on being in currency flies the leg back to home base. Unfortunately, just after touchdown, during his landing roll a herd of deer dash across the runway (it does happen) causing experienced pilot to swerve, leave the runway and hit a parked aircraft. Accident completely not the pilot's fault but the AAIB note his lack of flying in the last three months and look closer at his experience - The CAA then ask why he had a passenger on board when he wasn't in currency and the insurance company won't pay up because it was an illegal flight and CAA start asking questions of the friend about
allowing a non-qualified person to fly the aircraft when they are not an Instructor.........."

"Ah!" But experienced pilot says "There was this post on PPRuNe where TT
explained this was perfectly allowable"

This thread has turned out to be very useful as it has elicited the actual
rules with references on where to find them. Especially the one
from Mr Average:
Little known fact is that, if you do your 3 with an instructor, passengers may not be carried GM1 FCL.060(b)(1) Recent experience

But I don't quite see that the discussion is so important. If a pilot is current in all ways, except the 90 day rule for carrying passengers, then, surely, it must be easiest and cheapest to fly the requirement solo. Why want to have anyone else on board?

[Level Attitude]

CAP 804 Section 1 Part E Page 13
9 Guide to log annotations Case F
Pilot on flight deck but not as P1, P2, SPO or FE:
(i) Acting as ‘required’ Flight Navigator (under the Air Navigation Order)
(ii) Pilot supervising Co-pilot activities
(iii) No duties assigned (Supernumerary)
- - - - Enter time in ‘Any other flying’ or spare column and annotate ‘SNY’

he's the captain throughout, and to pre-empt the next argument, he does not need to be an instructor to hand over control to another person. I would record such a flight in my logbook as SNY, the times would not count towards any totals but my landings would count to requalify me.


How does flying an aeroplane equate with "no duties assigned"?

[englishal]

Why complicate matters??? If you are out of currency, either go up with a FI and do your 3 T/O's and L/D's and log it as P/UT and you are current again, go up solo and do them and log them as PIC, or have your pilot mate in the second seat, but remain PIC, and do them as above.

Technically you are not allowed to carry a pilot mate as they would be a PAX and this is not allowed, but in reality you are far better off taking a current pilot with you who can spot you and is a second set of eyes that just jumping in a plane and going for it.

I dunno why the rules don't allow for a "safety pilot" for these situations. Anyway no one really cares and if you are sensible you wouldn't dream of flying PAX unless you were current and safe.

[mad_jock]

The only way this will be resolved is when there is a court case and thelegal aspect has been resolved.

Currently its happening pretty regularly.

There isn't a safety case to stop it.

It is legal to do it solo with no backup. And it doesn't involve any none pilots who arn't aware of the risks.

Its not really done inside the confinds of a club or school enviroment because its easier to use an instructor and club rules will require a check out before 90 days.

If this was a huge issue the insurance policys would say its not possible.

As for none licensed pilots landing and taking off without an instructor next to them it must be happening daily with medical failures, pilots, kids, familys, etc all doing it with a licensed pilot next to them Number of accidents in the last 10years zero.

oh by the way the fcl 60 rule there is a hard rule for none qualified pilots landing and taking off which is done through the aircraft flight manuals and an excemption given while training under a trto. Nothing for sep

And carry out to me is just that you have done them there is nothing to stipulate in what capacity.

[italianjon]

The real question here, is if the runway is long enough, can you leave your mate at the Holding Point, then lift-off and land straight three times down the full length, taxi back to the holding point and pick up your mate.

Making sure it was in the logbook for currency though... A 1 minute flight with 3 landings would raise an eyebrow, but is there actually an definition that says a flight has to be of a certain length... in effect you're doing 3 Wright Brothers' Kitty Hawks, and I am sure they were allowed to log it ;)

[mad_jock]

I have done 3 to and landings in 5 mins in a tommy doing figure of eights on cross runways bad wx circuits. And that was with an instructor on board in the lhs. Way way outside his personal flight envelope, the cfi had given him the job to get him to wind his neck in about his own personal handling level.

[BackPacker]

I hope you will accept that someone who is operating an aircraft - particularly
as "sole manipulator of the controls" during Take Off, Approach and Landing
is acting as a Pilot.

Show me the regulation where it says that during the flight, only "a pilot" may handle the controls, or that somebody handling the controls is (for the purpose of the regulations) considered "the pilot". Either a generic rule or one that is specific for take-off and landing. I'd be most interested, but I have never come across such a rule.

I regularly let my passengers (some of which are well below the legal age to be pilots anyway) handle the controls. That doesn't make them pilots. That doesn't compel them to write anything in their logbooks. And there is no limitation anywhere that I know of, that would prevent me from letting them do the take-off or landing as well. As passengers. And as sole manipulators of the controls.

(Well, that last statement is not quite true. I know of one specific aircraft where the POH directs you to remove the controls from the RHS if the RHS is occupied by a passenger. So you would not be flying according to the POH if the passenger would handle the controls, as his controls should not be there in the first place.)

And to further reinforce my point, the ANO always talks about "pilot" in almost every article. Sometimes made more specific by terms such as "pilot in command", "pilot flying" and so forth. This suggests a person who holds a valid and current pilots license for whatever class or type of aircraft we're dealing with. But in the currency requirements all of a sudden the whole word "pilot" has disappeared and all we are left with is "sole manipulator of the controls". Why would that be, do you think?

ANO Schedule 7, Part A, section 1, subsection 1, Private Pilots License:
(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;[...]

(This is from section 1, "United Kingdom Licences". But the wording in section 2, "JAR-FCL licences" is the same.)

Anyway, the ANO has been superseded (or will be superseded shortly) by EASA regulations which are worded differently, so the whole discussion will be moot then.

[robin]

I suppose hidden behind this question is what is currency? and is this being driven by the high cost of flying?

There is the legal definition which seems clear - so many hours in the second year inc a flight with an instructor or an LPC - and, for passenger-carrying, 3 take-off and landings in the past 90 days.

The discussion is about the detail of how you can do it.

Most clubs would not rent out to someone who hadn't flown as P1 or P2 in the past 28-45 days without a check with an instructor. That could be taken as a money-making income stream for the club, though probably it is part of their insurance.

In my group rules we use 45 days as a guideline limit mainly because we had a pilot who, for reasons unknown, would try to bang in his 3 landings in a 20 min flight every 89th day to stay legal and to avoid flying with an instructor. He was a cr*p pilot getting worse through lack of currency, so we changed the rules.

Now, as I am a super skygod, as are many here, I feel perfectly able to go for longer periods without being checked but I fly enough and regularly enough not to get close to the 90 day limit on passenger flying and I will be flying through the winter (once I get a seaplane).

[mad_jock]

Can we try and all use the correct terms for capacity of pilot.

PIC - Captain equals old P1
copilot - Copilot old P2
Dual - under instruction old P/ ut

You cannot be copilot in a sep in private operation in theroy it is possible in commercial but I have never heard of it.

[englishal]

As a general comment to currency - I work away for 5 weeks at a time, and during that 5 weeks cannot fly at all. So call it 6 weeks of periods of no flying. However when I am home I can fly every day if I want, and during the 5 weeks at home generally bang out quite a few flights. In my experience my currency doesn't suffer much during the 5 weeks of no flying, and I think that the more flying one has done, the longer "currency" lasts. It is very important for a fresh PPL to fly regularly imho.

Having said that, I make sure I use the checklist for the first few flights, rather than do it all from memory (which one should do anyway, but I know the aeroplane inside and out seeing as I own it)- I once flew half way back from Plymouth with a stage of flap out as I forgot to put them away after take off....No big deal but I did wonder why we were not going as fast as we should have been :D

[robin]

I once flew half way back from Plymouth with a stage of flap out as I forgot to put them away after take off....No big deal but I did wonder why we were not going as fast as we should have been

Me too.....:O

[mad_jock]

i have seen folk that fly 20 hours a week do that. 99% of the time it happens is when ATC comes out with some none safety related pish below 1000ft agl.

[RTN11]

Think of a simple case, two pilots in currency go flying, one signs for the aircraft and takes responsibility, but the other actually does all the hand flying including the take off and landing.

After the flight, an investigator from the CAA comes sniffing round because of reports of low flying, or because the insurance was a week out of date, or the ARC was out of date, whatever. Who is the investigator going to go for?

There can certainly be a difference between the Pilot In Command from the legal sense, and the pilot flying in the physical sense, even in what is legally a single crew aircraft. It is the PIC who would have the legal responsibility for the flight, including ensuring his licence and currency was adequate for the flight he was about to undertake.

[englishal]

I can't remember the last time I signed for an aircraft, we just get in an go (after appropriate pre-flight visual inspections of course).

[smithgd]

Show me the regulation where it says that during the flight, only "a pilot" may handle the controls, or that somebody handling the controls is (for the purpose of the regulations) considered "the pilot". Either a generic rule or one that is specific for take-off and landing. I'd be most interested, but I have never come across such a rule.

It took me a while but....

I can't find anything in EASA Part-FCL that defines pilot, passenger or handling the controls. :ugh:
I can't find anything in the CAA ANO that defines pilot, passenger or handling the controls. :ugh:

But there is a definition of pilot in ICAO ANNEX I chapter 1.1=
"Pilot (to). To manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft during flight time."


Article 50 within Section 1 part 6 of the ANO states:

"....person must not act as a pilot of an EASA aircraft that is registered in the United Kingdom without holding an appropriate licence granted, converted or rendered valid under the EASA Aircrew Regulation........"

It also covers being a student and none EASA aircraft later in the text!

Hope that helps!

[mad_jock]

Not really because ICAO isn't law in europe. The law is compliant apart from the stuff we don't fancy which we file a difference on which stands at 7 double sided pages for the uk at the moment in jeps.

And I would bang back that a pilot of a ship directs the manovering of the vessel but has a helmsman to do the control inputs.

Those of us that are happy will continue doing it and those that arn't will continue not doing it as is our right as PIC.

Unless you know of any accidents which have been caused by such practises there really isn't a case to stop this practise.

[flybymike]

It certainly seems ironic that a qualified and current pilot may fly as a passenger with a medically restricted one and be expected to save the day if the other collapses at the wheel, but yet the same pilot may not fly with another who is fit and well just in case they both crash and perish because one of them has only done two landings in the last 90 days (maybe even both of them yesterday)

[mad_jock]

The whole point of the regulation is to prevent people who don't have clue about the risks being exposed to an uncurrent pilot.

Someone who understands the risk isn't an issue otherwise they wouldn't let you do it solo.

There isn't a safety case to ban it either because its been happening for years and nothing has been highlight in the accident stats otherwise they would have banned it years ago.

[BabyBear]

I think the discussion is about the legality of taking another pilot when doing your 3 to/landings, with some differing views. As far as I can see no one has actually argued that it should be the case, on safety or any other grounds.

they would have banned it years ago

This is a pretty meaningless statement, MJ, how can they ban something that is already not permitted?

Don't think we will reach agreement on this one here.

BB

[mad_jock]

it is permitted.

Not only that there are several charity events around the country which ppl's and there planes give hands on experence flights. The caa know about these and quite often there are off duty flight ops inspectors involved in these worthy causes. Some of which shock horror arn't instructor rated on class.

Currently there have been zero prosecutions and it is pretty much a multiple daily even't none qualified on class handling the controls without an instructor on board.

[smithgd]

flybymike: It certainly seems ironic that a qualified and current pilot may fly as a passenger with a medically restricted one and be expected to save the day if the other collapses at the wheel, but yet the same pilot may not fly with another who is fit and well just in case they both crash and perish because one of them has only done two landings in the last 90 days (maybe even both of them yesterday)


The role of safety pilot is completely different, don't introduce more confusion. The safety pilot is just that...a safety pilot, a required member of the crew and is not a passenger. They can log it as SNY.

MJ: I wasn't suggesting it's law, just providing a reference to answer backpackers question.

I think the answer to the OP is that the law isn't 100% clear. The problem will only occur if you have an accident!

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi, just slightly off subject. If you are a member of group owned aircraft, and one of your members has not flown in say 5 months, how would you require him to get up to date to fly passengers?

A. Have him fly once with a instructor, then do 3 TO/LDs solo.
B. Fly once with a group member, then do 3 TO/LDs solo.
C. Fly all his 3 TO/LDs with a group member.
D. Fly all his 3 TO/LDs solo.

Also would you require him to do any of he above to just fly solo?

BTW. I dont think Touch+Gos count towards the three requirement, it surely has to be brakes off to brakes on to be logged as one flight.

[smithgd]

phiggsbroadband

It would depend on what is written in you group contract and insurance! But from the CAA/EASA point of view it would be either option D or

option E: fly with instructor and do 3 TO/LDGs with him.

depending on experience, the instructor can then determine if any more training is needed, I doubt it though.

Touch and Go's are fine, there is no requirement for a "flight" to only have 1 take off and landing.

[robin]

In our group rules, between 45 and 90 days, fly with another current member of the group (ie me).

Longer than 90 days, a check ride including multiple circuits with a friendly local instructor who knows us and the aircraft.

[Steve6443]

A. Have him fly once with a instructor, then do 3 TO/LDs solo.
B. Fly once with a group member, then do 3 TO/LDs solo.
C. Fly all his 3 TO/LDs with a group member.
D. Fly all his 3 TO/LDs solo.

Also would you require him to do any of he above to just fly solo?

BTW. I dont think Touch+Gos count towards the three requirement, it surely has to be brakes off to brakes on to be logged as one flight.

A similar situation came up at our club, the decision whether A, B, C or D was resolved by the member - he himself decided whether he felt competent to fly (or not) - in this case he did fly a check flight with an instructor. They landed, the instructor got out and he did his 3 touch and gos - having said this, the aircraft concerned was a Cessna 182. The reason why I say that is that as far as FAA goes, sec 61.57 (http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part61-57-FAR.shtml) states that these flights only have to be to a complete stop when flying tail wheel aircraft....

However, the CAA states on it's website the following (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1580/NPPL%20Schedule%208%20Amendment%2015%20Jan%2007%20-%20Public%20Release%20v%201%200%200.pdf) - that there needs to be 3 takes offs and landings - no mention of full stop, irrespective of tail wheel or tricycle....

[RTN11]

phiggsbroadband - there is no mention that the three landings have to be three separate flights, most people simply do three touch and gos if they need them, then put 3 in the landings column or in the remarks so it is clear they have met the requirement.

elsewhere in the same rule book, in the requirements for a night rating it does specifically say a full stop landing, so I would take the fact that in this instance it does not state full stop, a touch and go is fine (assuming the rules were written by the same person :})

[flybymike]

The role of safety pilot is completely different, don't introduce more confusion. The safety pilot is just that...a safety pilot, a required member of the crew and is not a passenger. They can log it as SNY.
Why can't I add more confusion? It's good fun!
An NPPL flying on a medical restriction is entitled to fly solo but can only carry a qualified pilot as a passenger. That pilot is not required crew.

[mad_jock]

They could do all of them phill.

Instructor checkpout with one circuit then another couple solo.

3 solo

Another group member as PIC who is inside 90 and the person does the landing.

And no accident has happen yet so there is no case law which just shows you the risk you are taking :D

Crack on take your PPL mate up as PIC. And be done with it.

[robin]

And no accident has happen yet so there is no case law which just shows you the risk you are taking

Crack on take your PPL mate up as PIC. And be done with it.

Actually, there have been accidents, but as you say, no case law.

The example I have in mind ( a real one) was of a pilot out of currency flying as handling pilot with a mate. He screwed up on landing and wrote the aircraft off.

The PIC, very generously, said he had been the handling pilot. Fortunately there were only minor injuries but, due to the generosity of the PIC, the insurance paid out.

As you say "Crack on take your PPL mate up as PIC. And be done with it."

[Level Attitude]

The example I have in mind ( a real one) was of a pilot out of currency flying as handling pilot with a mate. He screwed up on landing and wrote the aircraft off.

The PIC, very generously, said he had been the handling pilot. Fortunately there were only minor injuries but, due to the generosity of the PIC, the insurance paid out.



Luckily the 90 Day rule doesn't say the three landings have to be completed successfuly.

So, not only does the handling pilot not have a blot on his record, assuming that was his 3rd landing then
he is also (according to some) now current to take passengers.

[mary meagher]

Last time I flew my supercub, landing back at White Waltham, I got three landings and takeoffs all in one go...boing, boing boing...(blush)

Thereby now being qualified to carry pax in the UK. However, according to the FAA, and Steve643, in the US a taildragger must come to a complete stop every time....

[mad_jock]

Doesn't matter if the PIC is handling or not its still there problem.

As for the insurance side of things, just go and ask them ;)

I have and also know several groups that also have. Also had it in writing as well that they are insured for it with none instructors. With PPL PIC and other handling the controls.

I was for a period a checker for a group with no valid SEP. Couldn't quite work that one out either. But insurance broker was happy to list me as one and the person flew as PIC and was inside 90 days.

[Mike Cross]

Everyone's enjoying confusing group rules, insurance and the law. From a purely legal perspective (unless they've radically changed things and I've missed it) the requirement is that in the last 90 days you've done 3 takeoffs and landings as sole manipulator of the controls. If you haven't done it go out and do them on your own. No problem.

If you are nervous about your currency and want someone with you then you need someone else who will be PIC while you do it because legally you cannot be PIC if he/she is in the a/c with you because you're outside the 90 day rule. (Not too difficult so far?).

If you read your finely crafted ANO you will find nothing in there that prevents you as PIC from teaching your granny to fly, however if she was flying or about to fly a flying machine or glider for the purpose of becoming qualified for:
(a) the grant of a pilot's licence; or
(b) the inclusion or variation of any rating or qualification in a pilot's licence. you would need to have an FI rating. (see Art 80) If you hand over the controls to someone else there's nothing to stop you from continuing to be PIC although Art 93 requires "a pilot" to be strapped in at the controls at all times and in an a/c that requires 2 pilots, "2 pilots" during take-off and landing. Note it specifies "a pilot" not "the commander", so you can quite legally be PIC while chatting up the flight attendant in the aft galley so long as the FO is strapped in up front.

Ergo IMHO there would be nothing illegal in me being PIC with no FI rating while one of my fellow group members poled it around the sky. On a practical level, if he felt so insecure that he thought my being there was better than him doing it solo I might demur on the grounds of common sense. He of course would not be able to log the time as a crew member because he wouldn't be qualified so to act.

You all know the privileges of your license, e.g. PPL(A)
(2) The holder may not:
(a) fly such an aeroplane for the purpose of commercial air transport, public transport
or aerial work except in accordance with paragraph (3);

Aerial Work is defined in Art 259. Letting your mate have a pole is not per se Aerial Work.

There is no requirement to log the fact that you've done 3 landings to retain your currency, in fact there's no requirement to log landings at all (see Art 79) you could quite happily go up with another pilot for an hour with you each logging 30 min as PIC and him doing the landing(s). It would however be sensible to record doing them so you have the answer to hand if asked.

If they wanted the person doing the landings to be PIC or Pu/t they would have said so, the fact that they used the terminology "sole manipulator of the controls" is good enough in my book to indicate that that is precisely what they meant.

Final caveat, the fact that something is legal does not mean it's sensible and it doesn't protect you from being done under some other provision, e.g. for endangerment under the Civil Aviation Act.

[taybird]

Phiggsbroadband

We have a 28 day currency requirement in our contract. This may be waived if certain conditions are met. We use a checkout with an instructor to regain currency. This usually consists of a few circuits, sometimes a bit of general handling depending on the length of time elapsed.

Works for us; keeps the insurance company happy and keeps the group happy.

[BackPacker]

(unless they've radically changed things and I've missed it)

They have and you did...;)

EASA uses a different wording. See my earlier post on that subject.

FCL.060 Recent experience
[...]
(b) Aeroplanes, helicopters, powered-lift, airships and sailplanes. A pilot shall not operate an aircraft in commercial air transport or carrying passengers:
(1) as PIC or co-pilot unless he/she has carried out, in the preceding 90 days, at least 3 take-offs, approaches and landings in an aircraft of the same type or class or an FFS representing that type or class. The 3 take-offs and landings shall be performed in either multi-pilot or single-pilot operations, depending on the privileges held by the pilot [...]

So instead of "sole manipulator of the controls" we now have "carried out". Which implies to me that he has to perform all duties of the pilot, including being responsible for the conduct of the flight. Not just manipulating the controls.

[mad_jock]

It to me is even less defined than previously.

Sole manipulator states what you have to do.

Carried out is less so.

I do 4-6 approaches a day I carried out each one of them due to the fact I am on the ground after everyone of them and provided input into each one and I am required to be there. 50% plus of them I don't touch the stick but I do select flap and gear and flick some switches and do checklists.

[24Carrot]

So instead of "sole manipulator of the controls" we now have "carried out". Which implies to me that he has to perform all duties of the pilot, including being responsible for the conduct of the flight. Not just manipulating the controls.

You could argue that, but in my book "carried out" is still pretty vague.

Given the endless debates over "sole manipulator", and the obvious safety issues, I wonder why they could not just say what they meant.

Perhaps this is a classic "Euro-fudge". Perhaps they could not decide, so they simply wrote something meaningless and hoped that nobody would notice. I am sure they still got paid... :rolleyes:

[robin]

Four pages on this and we haven't had Irv commenting on this......:ok:

[mad_jock]

I think he is one of the posters who stopped posting on pprune after Genghis got banned.

[Mike Cross]

FCL.060 Recent experience
[...]
(b) Aeroplanes, helicopters, powered-lift, airships and sailplanes. A pilot shall not operate an aircraft in commercial air transport or carrying passengers:
(1) as PIC or co-pilot unless he/she has carried out, in the preceding 90 days, at least 3 take-offs, approaches and landings in an aircraft of the same type or class or an FFS representing that type or class. The 3 take-offs and landings shall be performed in either multi-pilot or single-pilot operations, depending on the privileges held by the pilot [...]


Well if you can show me how FCL.060 features in UK Law then I might admit that you hàve a point.

[BackPacker]

As a member of the EU, EASA regulations supersede UK law.

Although I'm not sure what the exact legal status of EASA-FCL is at this very moment. The regulations might not have been fully effected yet, and countries can opt-out ("derogate") for a specific amount of time as well.

[Mike Cross]

I suggest you read this From the EUropean Commission Application of EU law - European Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/introduction/welcome_en.htm)

AIUI you are wrong. If you were to be prosecuted you would not be prosecuted for an offence against EU Law but for an offence against the National Law of the prosecuting State. It is up to EU States to incorporate EU Law into their National Law and, as the reference states, it is for the EC to monitor and take action if they believe it has not been done properly.

The ongoing controversy over the rights of prisoners to vote in UK elections is one such example.

[BackPacker]

From that same site, just on a different page:

What is EU law?

The main goal of the EU is the progressive integration of Member States' economic and political systems and the establishment of a single market based on the free movement of goods, people, money and services.

To this end, its Member States cede part of their sovereignty under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which empowers the EU institutions to adopt laws.

These laws (regulations, directives and decisions) take precedence over national law and are binding on national authorities. The EU also issues non-binding instruments, such as recommendations and opinions, as well as rules governing how EU institutions and programmes work, etc.

(Application of EU law - European Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/introduction/treaty_en.htm); my bold)

What are EU regulations?

Regulations are the most direct form of EU law - as soon as they are passed, they have binding legal force throughout every Member State, on a par with national laws. National governments do not have to take action themselves to implement EU regulations.

They are different from directives, which are addressed to national authorities, who must then take action to make them part of national law, and decisions, which apply in specific cases only, involving particular authorities or individuals.

Regulations are passed either jointly by the EU Council and European Parliament, and by the Commission alone.

(Application of EU law - European Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/introduction/what_regulation_en.htm); my bold)

[Mike Cross]

Interesting, an endless source of funding for the legal profession I suspect. At the end of the day it comes down to a decision by a Court and what we say here is largely irrelevant.

(1) as PIC or co-pilot unless he/she has carried out, in the preceding 90 days, at least 3 take-offs, approaches and landings in an aircraft of the same type or class or an FFS representing that type or class. The 3 take-offs and landings shall be performed in either multi-pilot or single-pilot operations, depending on the privileges held by the pilot [...]

If the a/c is certified for single pilot operation and someone esle is PIC I still don't see any prohibition on the non-PIC carrying out the take-offs and landings, subject to the common-sense caveat I posted earlier.

Mike

[BillieBob]

Quite straightforward in practice: EU Directives have to be enacted into national law. EU Regulations supersede national law.

[VP-F__]

PIC, Pu/t, sole manipulator, when common sense (and the law) is applied then it is obvious that if a pilot is outside of the 90 day ruling then the only other pilot that is legal to be on board is one that is authorised to be there.

That said as a practical person I do buy into the argument (to a point) that having another pilot on board would be safer than not, especially if you are a pilot who has few hours total and has not flown for some time. However for a moment imagine a senario (possibly not uncommon):

Pilot A has about 60 hours total, and completed his PPL four years ago and has not flown for four months, with only five hours in the last year. Basically he is, like many, a pilot who has to think about how to fly and everything is mechanical rather than natural.
He asks Pilot B, his PPL pal, along to act as a safety pilot while he does his required landings. This appears a wise decision even if not strictly legal. His PPL pal has maybe a hundred hours total and 10 hours in the last year but no instructor training or formal safety pilot training.
They take off, bimble around the circuit and his mate starts giving him some pointers on flying a tidier circuit, or a power setting or maybe points out the the flaps have been left down. All this adds to stress on the part of Pilot A. On short finals something happens, maybe Pilot A gets overloaded, maybe Pilot B (not a trained instructor remember) gets overly nervous, the upshot being that Pilot B takes control. Had he been by himself he hopefully would have gone around, thought about what happened, and corrected. Had he had an instructor onboard then there would have been a formal change of control, a discussion about what happened and then continue. However the situation now is finely balanced and possibly tense. Pilot B soon realises that his controls are in the opposite sense due to sitting in the right hand seat, if he flies wing down for crosswind his eyeline is different, it all feels very unnatural..... what happens next? Hopefully a successful landing but as has already been mentioned that is not always the case.

Personally after about six years flying Islanders I became a company examiner, I soon discovered that while hardly having to think about flying the thing from the left seat in crosswinds regularly 30kts, flying it from the right was a different matter. The picture out was different, my hands had to move in the opposite direction to normal for a go around, it all took a lot more thought. If you have no experience flying from the right hand seat then it might be wise to do a bit with a competent person in the left before safety piloting someone who has not flown for some time.

[robin]

Good summary

When all goes well, then there is no issue, though those on board might wet their knickers, but swear blind everything was kosher.

In the incident I mentioned earlier, suppose the handling, but non-current pilot had died in the crash. Suppose the family then decided to take action against the PIC or his estate.

In my instance, the PIC took the blame and insurance paid out. They both survived but the aircraft was lost. In the event of death or serious injury, all bets are off.

For what it is worth, our group rules say that when you are at group limits or when you feel you are at your own personal limits - whichever comes first - then have a check with an instructor.

If you or your group work differently then fine.

[Maoraigh1]

Pilot A has about 60 hours total, and completed his PPL four years ago and has not flown for four months, with only five hours in the last year. Basically he is, like many, a pilot who has to think about how to fly and everything is mechanical rather than natural.
He asks Pilot B, his PPL pal, along to act as a safety pilot while he does his required landings. This appears a wise decision even if not strictly legal. His PPL pal has maybe a hundred hours total and 10 hours in the last year but no instructor training or formal safety pilot training
A more likely Group scenario is pilot B has flown 10 hours in the last 6 weeks. There is only one local instructor with experience on the type, and that was more than 10 years ago. And B sits quietly, just responding to "Was that for us?" and " What did ATC say?" Or, (only once, in many years) after 5 go-arounds, "You take it."

[Irv]

I think he is one of the posters who stopped posting on PPRuNe after Genghis got banned.
I didn't know I'd stopped, mind you, my posting rate must be at least one per year so no-one would notice. I've been away for most of November here and there, and not had time to even read these 5 pages never mind figure out anything about banning. It all seems 'very UK' to dissect all these rules to the 'n'th degree to see how many interpretations or scenarios can be found. Do other countries' pilots do this dissection thing or do they just get on with it?

[mad_jock]

Some do, some don't.

Some seem to focus on the niff naff and triva and ignore important stuff which is actually quite sensible and a life saver eg Approach bans.

This topic has always been recycled with various people around the country taking exception to instructors not being used, mainly those involved in flying clubs and schools. They even go as far as MORing people who then never hear anything more about it. Just showing that they don't have a clue what the MOR system actually is.

I was even told once that it was illegal for me to sit in the RHS while flying a SEP as PIC without a valid instructors rating. When I pointed out that I hadn't actually flown a SEP in the LHS for 8 years and 1000 hours and my LST to get the class back was also done from the RHS. This was just greeted by a shocked look and a statement "thats illegal"

Then there is other bits of the country which it is a complete none issue and just the way its been done for years and years.

[BackPacker]

Do other countries' pilots do this dissection thing or do they just get on with it?

Let's put it in perspective. PPRuNe is (at least to me) a place to hang out when the weather is too lousy to fly. I don't mind discussing far-fetched legal scenarios as it keeps me sharp. And this particular thread caused me to look up various details about EASA-FCL (both the regulations and the AMCs), derogations for EASA-FCL and the way the EU works. I learned loads from that alone.

[steve1234]

Anyone ever heard of a situation where an unqualified check pilot takes another pilot for a check ride and when the out of check pilot crashes the plane then claims that because 3 take off and landings had been done the out of check pilot was P1?

[mad_jock]

Nope, it is very very rare that anything happens on these flights.

Which is why there is no hard documentation on the subject.

[Maoraigh1]

Anyone ever heard of a situation where an unqualified check pilot takes another pilot for a check ride and when the out of check pilot crashes the plane then claims that because 3 take off and landings had been done the out of check pilot was P1?
As far as the "carry passenger" rule is concerned, the out of time pilot signs off the plane, and IS P1. He illegally carries a current, qualified, passenger, (who is aware of the situation,) just in case he finds things getting of his comfort zone. Also a valuable second opinion when he starts to worry about a noise/smell/vibration he's forgotten about, in a 50+ year old wood and fabric aircraft.

[thing]

"Was that for us?" and " What did ATC say?" We haven't flown together before have we?.....

Was flying a 152 back from it's annual the other day and was crossing some CAS, checking the kit out when I heard my controller bellowing probably for the second time 'G-**** you are now under radar control do you copy!?'

'G-** was that for me?' :}

[Level Attitude]

Drawing together several different Threads, summarising and, of course,
giving my opinion:

(Can't work out how to embed actual Link to another Thread)
From Private Flying "Giving Passengers Control"
Big range of opinions from "We've been doing it for years, of course it's
legal !" to "The wings will fall off if you let a Pax even touch the controls
and you will end up in prison for the rest of your life"

It doesn't matter what has been the norm in the past, what does matter is
what is allowed now (post 17th Sept 2012) under EASA

50 (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a person must not act as a
pilot of an EASA aircraft that is registered in the United Kingdom without
holding an appropriate licence granted, converted or rendered valid under
the EASA Aircrew Regulation

EASA, in their wisdom, have decided not to define "pilot" therefore the
common usage (as relates to aviation) definition needs to be used.
Unfortunately there are two of these:
1) "A person who operates the flying controls of an aircraft" which reads correctly
when used in the above paragraph but does mean no allowing Pax to handle controls.
or
2) "One who is licensed to operate an aircraft in flight" Which (I hope) simply means
an EASA License is required to operate an EASA Aircraft.

I would like this clarified by our "Competent Authority" but I'm not holding my breath,
they took over 3 months to come up with the IN on Language Proficiency - and that
issue was causing themselves a great deal of hassle.

Since nothing is Loggable by any Passenger, then nothing "officially" takes place so
unless, and until, it is specifically forbidden I see nothing wrong with continuing to allow
Pax to have a go on the controls.

From Questions "Logging of T/O and Landings"
There was not under JAR, and there is not under EASA, any requirement to Log
Take Offs and Landings. However there are times when a pilot may be required to
prove what TOs and Lndgs they have done - ie Night Rating requires 5 x Solo TOs
and 5 x Full Stop Lndgs; Revalidating SEP by Experience need to prove 12 x TOs
and 12 x Lndgs in last year of validity.

Hopefully no one on this Forum will ever need to prove 3 x TOs, App and Lndg for
Pax carrying currency, but Logging them is both an easy way to do this
(not all airfields will note movements) and for pilots to easily check their
own currency.

Pax Carrying Currency
So if a pilot is perfectly legal to fly an aeroplane, but is outside the 90 Day
rule for carrying passengers they have several options:

a) If they are, or believe they are, perfectly competent.
1) Fly PIC Solo until within currency
2) Fly DUAL with an Instructor, just for the hell of it, until within currency
3) Fly PIC with an experienced Check Pilot, current on type next to them
4) Fly PIC with a "pilot mate" next to them
5) Fly PIC with a Pax next to them (for a couple of circuits to regain
currency) before leaving on the planned flight.
Everyone, so far, has agreed that 3), 4) & 5) above are illegal - so anyone
who decides to do this is just wilfully ignoring the rules which, to me, is a
sign that I probably don't ever want to fly with them

b) If they are a bit rusty and/or are not confident
6) Fly DUAL with an Instructor until within currency, or until they realise
they are competent and finish off PIC Solo.
7) Fly as Pax with an experienced Check Pilot, current on type who can
teach/coach them until they are competent to regain currency by flying
PIC solo.
As this is a private flight Check Pilot must pay their share for aircraft hire.
8) Fly as Pax with an experienced Check Pilot, current on type who can
teach/coach them until they are competent. Decide that as they now have
completed enough TOs and Lndgs (even if not competent) then they are current to carry Pax.
Private flight as in 7) above so PIC must pay. As a Pax nothing is loggable
so the TOs and Lndgs were not officially carried out by the Pax.
Therefore they cannot be relied upon to meet the official
currency requirement in order to legally act as PIC with passengers on board.
9) Fly as Pax with a "pilot mate" until they are competent to regain currency by flying PIC solo.
Why not? Except that if "pilot mate" is not also an experienced pilot on type, it
could take a loooong time for competency to be regained.
10) Fly as Pax with a "pilot mate" until landing currency (not necessarily competency) is reached.


It is scenarios 8) and 10) which seem to generate disagreement on this Forum. I, for one, firmly
believe that if something didnot "officially" occur
then it cannot be relied upon for an"official" purpose; others seem to take
a different view.

It also does not matter whose view, on this Forum, is correct as if there
is not an incident it doesn't matter and if there is:

From Private Flying "Advice Please"
Can someone give me some advice about this. A friend mine was involved in a plane crash and they told him to send the insurance claim report to the guy in his group who looks after the paperwork. When this guy saw the report he told my friend to alter some of the details about what happened, like the number of 90 day take off and landings he had done and things like that. They said he should send the same report to the AAIB. He was still ill at the time but now he is not sure that’s right could he be in trouble here?

Then it will be the CAA's view which counts, as they will decide whether
to invite you for interview, recommend sanctions (or prosecution) and
provide expert witnesses and advice to any magistrate/judge.

Is it really worth it for the cost of a couple of circuits?

[Pace]

LA

In a single pilot aircraft the pilot is the one who is licensed to fly the aircraft.

Even if he hands the controls to an unlicensed PAX he surely still remains the pilot and able to take back control if he sees fit.

If the said pilot hands control to the autopilot he is still piloting the aircraft so MAYBE ?? in the same way if he lets the PAX hold the controls the pilot is still the pilot.

As in all these scenarios all is fine till its not fine ie an accident occurs. Should the pilot guide the PAX through a landing and it goes wrong who is the pilot the guiding pilot who is still controlling the aircraft albeit through the hands of a PAX or the PAX?

As with all grey areas the closer you get to the line between grey and white the bigger danger of crossing that line or being deemed to have crossed that line.

Pace

[Maoraigh1]

3) Fly PIC with an experienced Check Pilot, current on type next to them
4) Fly PIC with a "pilot mate" next to them

An illegal, but not immoral, activity performed by consenting and knowledgeable adults.

5) Fly PIC with a Pax next to them (for a couple of circuits to regain
currency) before leaving on the planned flight.
An illegal and immoral activity with an innocent victim.

Flying with an Instuctor is always legal, but if no local instructor has relevant currency?
And how will 3 circuits with an instructor in a PA28/38 or C152/172 make you safe for some Annex2 aircraft?

[Shunter]

but if no local instructor has relevant currency?

Don't forget that the 90 day rule does not apply to an instructor if he is flying with another pilot. The 90 day rule applies when carrying passengers; not when providing instruction to another pilot.

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi, just to complicate the issue... What if the pilot has never flown that groups aircraft before?

For instance, pilot has hundred of hours on Cessna 152 and wants to fly the group's C172... Its almost the same, but with slightly different speeds.

Or he has been flying a C172 with a carburated IO 320, and wants to use the C172 with the IO 360 fuel injected engine? Are we back to waiting for the 3 T/O + Lds again, before taking paxs? I suspect so, but it makes it difficult if you want to fly several different types.

[Pace]

For instance, pilot has hundred of hours on Cessna 152 and wants to fly the group's C172... Its almost the same, but with slightly different speeds.

Wow!! He needs to do 3 touch and goes before jumping from one such demanding and complex aircraft to another such a different beast???

I would have thought a cursory look at the manual would suffice!

Where have the days gone like I experienced where you were thrown a set of keys and told take that! jumping into an aircraft you had never flown and working it out yourself :ugh:

Pace

[mad_jock]

phiggs the requirement is for a particular class or type.

The SEP class covers all the aircraft you have mentioned so the 3 will cover you across the whole class including any complex differences.

What schools or clubs require for currency before renting is a completely seperate issue.

[Crash one]

Can the Instructor be un-qualified on tailwheel & still be legal for the 3 To+L in a taildragger? I know he can't be P1.

[mad_jock]

If they can't be PIC on an aircraft they stop being an Instructor on it.

[Crash one]

Thanks Jock, that's what I thought.

[Maoraigh1]

if no local instructor has relevant currency
What I meant was recent experience in something similar to the PPLs aircraft. Some LAA permit aircraft have very different characteristics compared to the common flyincg school types.

[Pilot.Lyons]

Hehe i love pprune

[Level Attitude]

Flying with an Instuctor is always legal, but if no local instructor has relevant currency?

Then Options 7) or 9) or 1) (my suggested order of preference)

And how will 3 circuits with an instructor in a PA28/38 or C152/172 make you safe for some Annex2 aircraft?
Although, hopefully, someone will always gain something (no matter how small) from any flight I will agree with you.

Given your scenario the purpose of this flight is not to become competent and/or safe in any specific aircraft - it is
only so the Pu/t can regain their currency to legally carry passengers.

As Landings only need to be "carried out" post 17 Sept they don't even
need to be competent and the Instructor can intervene as much as is
required on the controls.

So Pu/t doesn't even need to be familiar/current with whichever aircraft
they are in with the Instructor.

[Level Attitude]

For C-150/152 to C-172
I would have thought a cursory look at the manual would suffice!


Will result in:

Boing........Boing.......Boing......THUD!

or possibly just:

Boing...THUD!

I have seen too many bent Nose Wheels on C-172s - mainly from pilots with a high number of hours on the C-152 but very few on 172.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

mainly from pilots with a high number of hours on the C-152 but very few on 172
'Cos the 172 is harder to land when you're going too fast than the 152. It's just as easy if you're not going too fast, but it depends what habits the 152 driver has got into.

[Maoraigh1]

So Pu/t doesn't even need to befamiliar/current with whichever aircraft

'Cos the 172 is harder to land whenyou're going too fast than the 152. It's just as easy if you're not going toofast, but it depends what habits the 152 driver has got into.

So pilot does a few acceptable landings with an instructor in a C152, then goes in a Jodel DR1050 or a DH82A?

[Level Attitude]

So pilot does a few acceptable landings with an instructor in a C152, then goes in a Jodel DR1050 or a DH82A?
Given that
the purpose of this flight is not to become competent and/or safe in any specific aircraft - it is
only so the Pu/t can regain their currency to legally carry passengers
Then Yes.

Pilot is now legal to carry passengers. If they want/need checking out they
can now legally act as PIC whilst carrying a Check Pilot as Pax.

If they do not want/need checking out then why didn't they just do a
couple of circuits solo if they want to carry a passenger?