CAP804 does stipulate you must be a member of the flight crew for the 3 take offs and landings
wb9999
If this is so please quote where, as it will (hopefully) stop further argument
on the matter going forward.
The quotes from the ANO you have provided do not support your statement,
as they simply say a pilot must be at (ie monitoring) the controls not
anything about who is manipulating them.
The incident reported, which started this thread, occurred on 15th Sept 2012,
two days
before EASA came in to force.
I know it is not "the law" but LASORS 2010, Section F, Page 5 states:
Carriage of 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 this
requirement
For at least two years prior to the accident in question it was obvious
that the 3 x T/Os & Lndgs in 90 Days Pax carrying currency could not
(according to CAA) be achieved as a Passenger, but only as pilot flying
(either PIC or DUAL).
So why did/do people assume their interpretation of the law is better than
the guidance given by the CAA?
Also note the last line of the quote.
The "Check Pilot"
had to be PIC in this incident, both by law and by
the Group rules.
The "Checkee" could have been re-familiarised with, flown and even
landed, the aircraft under the guidance (not instruction) of the "Check Pilot"
but that would not have restored his currency to carry passengers.
The "Check Pilot", as PIC, must pay at least half the cost of the flight for
it to remain "private" and not "commercial".