View Full Version : Currency and passengers
Lister Noble
8th Mar 2010, 15:58
The 90 day rule of minimum 3 take off and landings in that time to carry passengers.
Does that still apply if the passenger is also a qualified pilot?
I've searched but cannot find an answer.
Lister:)
172driver
8th Mar 2010, 16:19
In my understanding YES, as in an a/c requiring only one pilot, anyone else is a passenger - no matter the qualifications. And if the other pilot flies, then you are the pax....
Mark1234
8th Mar 2010, 16:24
I'd agree.. unless they're an instructor and PIC from the right seat.. (I have no reference to back that up!)
BackPacker
8th Mar 2010, 16:37
I'd agree.. unless they're an instructor and PIC from the right seat..
AFAIK there is no legal requirement whatsoever that the PIC sits in the left or right seat. Nor, if somebody is under instruction, to sit left or right.
Mind you, there might (note: might) be limitations in the POH that if an aircraft is flown solo, it has to be from a certain seat due to W&B considerations (mostly applicable to tandem seating and light helicopters).
LEGAL TENDER
8th Mar 2010, 16:45
Currency and passengers...
I'll take any currency. Or cheques :)
Talkdownman
8th Mar 2010, 17:27
The 90 day rule of minimum 3 take off and landings in that time to carry passengers.
Does that still apply if the passenger is also a qualified pilot?
If the passenger who is a qualified pilot is a passenger and not a required member of the flight crew then he/she is a passenger therefore
the 90 day rule of minimum 3 take off and landings in that time
applies.
Applecore
8th Mar 2010, 18:09
what about an NPPL safety pilot?
AFAIK there is no legal requirement whatsoever that the PIC sits in the left or right seat. Nor, if somebody is under instruction, to sit left or right.
Mind you, there might (note: might) be limitations in the POH that if an aircraft is flown solo, it has to be from a certain seat due to W&B considerations (mostly applicable to tandem seating and light helicopters).
In some handbooks there is a requirement that is should be flown from the left seat, as some of the controls are operated from there.
I couldn't fly a PA 28 solo from the right hand seat as the fuel cock would be out of my reach.
Gertrude the Wombat
8th Mar 2010, 19:42
In some handbooks there is a requirement that is should be flown from the left seat
In some club flying order books there is such a requirement. Which is a legal requirement by virtue of the contract you enter into should you choose to rent from such a club.
BackPacker
8th Mar 2010, 19:59
I couldn't fly a PA 28 solo from the right hand seat as the fuel cock would be out of my reach.
As Gertrude says, it may be in the flying order book. But it's not a legal requirement and in this specific case (PA28) I don't remember having seen it in the POH either.
Lister Noble
8th Mar 2010, 20:09
My original post originated from trying to fly with a friend this morning.
We both have full licences, but he has not flown for over 3 months.
He was going to do 3 circuits then we were going to go off for the day.
In the event,the engine would not start due to some battery problem,I tried to hand start,I'm used to that with the L4 Cub.
Anyway it would not start,even with jump leads,so it was a more major problem than we reckoned,stuck solenoid,knackered starter,who knows?
I thought if we get it going I might as well jump in,BUT if we had an incident, then would we be legal.?
Having read replies ,I think probably not.
It's a group aircraft and in the past we have turned up and found switches left on,and other unreported faults.
I suppose it goes to prove if you have a group aircraft then it has to be run spot on.
Never have this sort of problem with our Cub.:)
Lister:)
LongExcursion
8th Mar 2010, 21:54
:ugh:My bank manager suggested one of those to me recently. Does anyone have any experience they could lend?
BackPacker
8th Mar 2010, 22:09
I thought if we get it going I might as well jump in,BUT if we had an incident, then would we be legal.?
If YOU were the PIC, then everything would be fine. And if your friend would be PIC, you would be passenger and the flight would have been illegal even without having an accident.
(Apart from the metaphysical question of whether having an accident would be legal in its own right.)
But... There's something that's interesting here.
LASORS 2008, appendix F contains a bit of the ANO 2005 Schedule 8:
"The holder [of a Private Pilots License] shall not [...] fly as pilot in command of such an aeroplane carrying passengers unless within the preceding 90 days he has made three take-offs and three landings as the sole manipulator of the controls of an aeroplane of the same type or class"
The article doesn't, as far as I can tell, specify the capacity in which you have to do these three take-offs and landings. If you were acting as Pilot in Command, but you were letting your friend do the take-offs and landings "as sole manipulator of the controls", would that be legal, and would that count towards his 90-day currency?
BackPacker
8th Mar 2010, 22:11
Cross Currency Mortgage Loans
Plenty people in Iceland with that type of mortgage. I'm sure they'd be happy to advice.
The article doesn't, as far as I can tell, specify the capacity in which you have to do these three take-offs and landings. If you were acting as Pilot in Command, but you were letting your friend do the take-offs and landings "as sole manipulator of the controls", would that be legal, and would that count towards his 90-day currency?
If you were a member of a group and current, it is perfectly possible for you to let your colleague play with the controls and even let him do the landings, but you are still the P1 and he is the passenger.
What you need to do is to let him prove to you he is ok then step out to let him do his 3 take-offs and landings.
In our group we have a 45 day rule, after which you fly with another current group member, but one prefers the comfort of flying with instructors who tnd to be less demanding than us.
hhobbit
9th Mar 2010, 00:59
ok so you go up with your pilot buddy. You do your three no problemo, simple, log 'em and away you go. Or you fluff up and he fishes you out, then you settle in, get three good 'uns, again no problemo. But say there's a (minor but expensive) prang: you had a passenger, so you're goosed. Or he had the prang, so was he insured or not? You certainly weren't!
Safest advice go with an instructor. But then again the Wx was perfect on Saturday and I was feeling up to it even after 100 days layoff. Like riding a bike:}.
ChrisVJ
9th Mar 2010, 01:16
In Canada it is five takeoffs/landings in the last six months and on top of that the same thing occurs for water landings.
I can not for the life of me remember what the circumstances are but I have this dim memory of the Canadian regs having an exception somewhere for qualified pilots as passengers , I just have no idea what it applied to.
24Carrot
9th Mar 2010, 08:26
"Sole manipulator of the controls" seems to be the key here. They could have said "Pilot in Command" (as they do in SEP revalidation for example) but chose not to.
So I believe you can jump in with him, log three circuits as PIC, while your friend does the take-offs and landings, then you switch command and he logs the time from then on, having gained his experience.
Subject to Group/Insurance/POH restrictions as others have mentioned, but IMHO not LASORS.
... but why the fancy pants. Just do it properly :ugh:
I had a group member who was a danger to himself and this passengers (usually one of his children). He always managed to do his 90-days, just. But one year he miscalculated the dates and failed to do so.
He flew on the 91st day, swore blind that he did 3 take-offs and landings, then put his son in for the intended flight.
Unfortunately for him I was on the airfield and watched him flying straight off with his child as a passenger.
Fortunately he is no longer a member of the group, as he could not be trusted to be honest with us in that and in many other ways.
Flying is about being honest with yourself.
Whopity
9th Mar 2010, 10:22
So I believe you can jump in with him, log three circuits as PIC, while your friend does the take-offs and landings, then you switch command and he logs the time from then on, having gained his experience.
Art 255‘Passenger’ means a person other than a member of the crew; The minute you swap roles in a Single crew aeroplane, you become a passenger, and the other pilot must have 90 day currency. If one of the pilots is an instructor then you can both legally be crew and neither need to be 90 day current.
Lister Noble
9th Mar 2010, 10:32
Life is about being honest with oneself.
Thank to all for the replies,a passenger is a passenger in this case,and I was a passenger.
Well would have been after the pilot had done his 3 t'o's and landings.
And if we had got the bl**dy thing going.
Cloud too low today,hope to fly the Cub tomorrow.
Lister:)
“Flying is about being honest with yourself.”
Agreed!
“... but why the fancy pants. Just do it properly ”
But what is properly? This is a new fangled JAA rule that has added nothing to safety (according to the official review of EASA). I am lucky that I fly far more than the minimum in daylight, but the new rules caused me to give up night flying after many years of safe aviating under the old rules.
Rod1
BackPacker
9th Mar 2010, 11:13
The minute you swap roles in a Single crew aeroplane, you become a passenger, and the other pilot must have 90 day currency.
But that's the point. You do NOT swap roles. You remain the PIC, while the passenger is the sole manipulator of the controls.
I'm not saying it's wise to do so, particularly not without instructor training and the resulting ability to do a last-minute recovery. You also might have some explaining to do in case the passenger screws up and you do get into trouble.
But would it be legal? Can a passenger be the "sole manipulator of the controls", for the purpose of gaining/maintaining currency? And on the side: how do you log this?
neither need to be 90 day current.
In case of an instructor acting as PIC, and the student manipulating the controls to gain/maintain currency, I would assume that the instructor/PIC would need to be 90 day current. But indeed, the currency rules talk about carrying passenger and since the student is, legally speaking, not a passenger but a member of the flight crew, is there really no additional rule that says the instructor has to be 90-day current in this case?
Mark1234
9th Mar 2010, 11:43
@BackPacker - sorry, my mention of the right hand seat was colloquial - I wasn't suggesting that the seat had any relevance to pilot status.
@hhobit - safest advice, don't take passengers - 90 day currency is just for carrying pax, nothing stopping you flying solo if you're comfortable (and hopefully realistically so). Really, 3 circuits need not take that long, then all legal again..
@Rod1 - it's not just JAA. I came from a non JAA, ICAO land-down-under, 90 days day, 90 days night, entirely separate. Plus a flight of >1hr at night within the previous 6 months. It's a bear to keep up, but rightly so IMHO (seperate debate).
But hey, that's a picnic compared to the 28day currency *in their a/c* that most 'clubs' round this part of the world insist on.. :ugh:
“... but why the fancy pants. Just do it properly ”
But what is properly? This is a new fangled JAA rule that has added nothing to safety (according to the official review of EASA). I am lucky that I fly far more than the minimum in daylight, but the new rules caused me to give up night flying after many years of safe aviating under the old rules.
Rod1
Like you I fly far more than the minimum hours and I agree the statistics do not support it adding to safety.
My point is simply this - if the rules permit (group or club rules) then if you are ok about flying your 3 landings and takeoffs solo, then do it.
If you feel nervous or rusty, then get some instruction or assistance first.
BUT - be honest with yourself. Think what it would be like to have your descendants reading about you in the AAIB report. Something like the guy in the PA28 -140 taking his passengers with him. Worse, the fact your estate will take a huge hit as the insurers will walk away.
Maoraigh1
9th Mar 2010, 20:54
This rule was quite rightly brought in after accidents with non-current pilots, who had non-pilot passengers. Unfortunately, it prevents a non-current group member flying with a current member as pax. If the aircraft is a taildragger, there may be no locally available taildragger instructor.
While both are equally illegal, there is a moral difference between carrying an innocent passenger, and carrying a passenger who has flown several hours in that aircraft, as PIC, in the past week.
flybymike
9th Mar 2010, 23:38
This rule was quite rightly brought in after accidents with non-current pilots, who had non-pilot passengers.
Bolleaux. The rule was brought in, in pursuance of continued pointless JAA/EASA regulation which will ultimately strangle GA to death for a proven 100% zero safety benefit until the EU bureaucrats who come up with this crap eventually have nothing left to regulate and disappear up their own a*ses.
The same goes for biennial flights, night ratings, annual MEP tests and all the other stuff we managed just as safely without for decades. ( And now they want periodic retesting by examiner as well....:rolleyes:) It's no wonder we cant encourage people to enter GA or stay there after qualifying, or that 75% of pilots chuck it all in after the first 5 years.