Passenger Carrying - Beyond 90 days

[Desert Strip Basher]

I'm beyond the 90 day threshold - if I have a checkflight with an instructor and perform 3 circuits does this suffice or do I then need to perform 3 circuits P1?

[Beethoven]

As I understand it, it is as "sole manipulator of the controls" so it would not matter if it was a check fight as long as the instructor doesn't take over.

Beet

[mad_jock]

You would be fine just record in your log book the fact you had done 3 Takeoffs and Landings dual and that will suffice.

As a point you don't actually need to go up with an instructor, you can just go up on your tod to suffice the requirement. With all the usual stipulations about checking to make sure your insurance is still valid etc.

[IO540]

In a G-reg you need to do 3 takeoffs and 3 landings, all during official UK-CAA night (official sunset + 30 mins).

They need to be done either with an instructor in the RHS (who himself needs to be night passenger current, or hold a valid JAA IR which exempts one from the 90 day requirement) or with nobody else in the aircraft.

In an N-reg the rules are slightly different, and the 3+3 need to be done after sunset + 1 hour. Night flight is logged after sunset + 30 mins (the 30 mins is actually an approximation but is widely used) but the night passenger carriage renewal needs ss+1hr.

I hope I got all that right :)

[mad_jock]

I don't think he was on about night :D

But you could do 2 daylight and 1 night to get the tick for both.

The instructor doesn't need to be night current because on a instructional sortie the student is classed as flight crew not pax.

I can never understand the get out of jail card for having an IR. The first one of the season after 6 months not landing at night can be very interesting. And I really don't see any skill set that the IR gives me that means I can judge dropping an aircraft into a black hole with sod all clue where the runway is and when we are going to hit it until I get my eye back in.

[S-Works]

In a G-reg you need to do 3 takeoffs and 3 landings, all during official UK-CAA night (official sunset + 30 mins).

They need to be done either with an instructor in the RHS (who himself needs to be night passenger current, or hold a valid JAA IR which exempts one from the 90 day requirement) or with nobody else in the aircraft.

In an N-reg the rules are slightly different, and the 3+3 need to be done after sunset + 1 hour. Night flight is logged after sunset + 30 mins (the 30 mins is actually an approximation but is widely used) but the night passenger carriage renewal needs ss+1hr.

I hope I got all that right

Nearly.

In a G Reg to carry passengers you must have done 3 take offs and landings in 90 days as sole manipulator of the controls.

If you wish to exercise the privileges of the licence at night then one of these must have been at night.

You can do these solo or if required as a dual flight with an Instructor.

A JAA IR does not exempt you from the 90 day passenger carrying rule, only from the night currency element.

[blagger]

Surely if the FI is night instructing a student P u/t then the student is not a passenger, hence no requirement for the FI to be passenger current?

[IO540]

That will teach me to read the question :ouch:

[G-BHZO]

The problem I have come up against in the past with the 90 day rule (day time), is that I tend to fly only 2 'sectors' every trip. As my trips are generally timed to stay within my club's insurance rule of flying every 60 days, it is possible to end up with only 2 take offs / landings within the last 90 days.

As I have a decent list of willing victims, I usually take people along for the trip (I will confess to being one of the bacon sarnie / Sunday lunch brigade), and therefore need to maintain 3 take-offs / landings to keep this legal. To avoid having a shortfall in the number of in-date take offs / landings, I now make a point of doing a touch-and-go on my return to my home airport.

Of course, I brief my pax on it before we depart for home, and wouldn't do it if the weather was dodgy or the passengers were nervous. It does give one increased opportunities to throw in an arrival rather than a landing, and last week resulted in a few orbits to make room for some bigger, faster and (most importantly) higher-revenue generating traffic, but otherwise so far, so good!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Of course, I brief my pax on it before we depart for home, and wouldn't do it if the weather was dodgy or the passengers were nervous.
Yes. I had a slightly nervous passenger once. I briefed him that I was going to do two landings when we got back to the airfield, but it didn't occur to me to brief him on the precise details of the RT phraseology. So when he heard me call "final touch and go" he started worrying that if I thought there was something "touch and go" about the prospects of landing then ...

[peter272]

The problem I have come up against in the past with the 90 day rule (day time), is that I tend to fly only 2 'sectors' every trip. As my trips are generally timed to stay within my club's insurance rule of flying every 60 days, it is possible to end up with only 2 take offs / landings within the last 90 days

Then not only are you outside the 90-day rule but I would suggest you are only marginally current. You might well meet the club minima, but are you actually in recent practice?

I had a group member who did the same as you, but his airmanship showed a massive deterioration over time.

[G-BHZO]

Peter,

A fair point and one that was expected...

Firstly, let me just clarify that after realising some time ago that I could be at risk of either being illegal for taking passengers, or would need to do circuits beforehand just to get legal again, I started making sure I did at least 3 take-offs (and usually 3 landings, although sometimes a couple more :eek:) each trip. As a result, I now maintain at least 3 take-offs / landings within the previous 60 days, due to the more stringent club requirements. Hopefully, I least win some points for having that level of awareness. I will also explicitly state that I have not actually taken passengers illegally, as I have taken steps to maintain the required currency. I am also acutely aware of the implications on my insurance if I decided to go out of currency and that the blame for any incident occurring on such a trip would rest with me as a result.

Secondly, I am sure I am one of many PPL club members who can't afford (time and money) to fly as regularly as I would like. I would like to think that I am aware of the limitations that my relative lack of currency creates, and consciously keep my trips within the scope of my talent. Of course, it is difficult to be objective on this, but I use a few 'sense checks' to try and keep things in perspective:

- Where my 60 currency has expired in the past, I have renewed it with some time with an instructor. The feedback has always been very positive and they have never had any hesitation on 'signing me off' to fly.

- I have a night qualification but decided to let it lapse, as I felt that my lack of currency could be a risk. I didn't want to have it as a 'get out of jail' card that I could use to get myself home... I would rather plan to be back in daylight hours and avoid the added risk. Likewise, I did 15 hours of IMC training but decided not to complete it for the same reason as above: my lack of currency coupled with the temptation to pull the IMC out of my case to get me home in crappy weather would likely end the wrong way.

- I try to set myself very high standards and always look back on every trip to see what I could have done better. I will happily ask an instructor if I am not sure of something before going, or to see if I could have handled something (eg a recent go around) better.

- My trips are generally free of drama... I don't get lost, I am confident on the radio, I am not a 'burden' on other parties (destination airfields, ATC, other aircraft) and I haven't had any complaints from my passengers or the club.

So, Peter, you are probably correct in that my currency could be better, however I believe I am mitigating it well with the above points. I would be interested to know how this compares to other PPLs of similar currency.

>> Edited to add that I don't believe my airmanship has deteriorated, in fact I would say it has improved with experience. Obviously I would say that, but I am trying to be objective and self-critical.

[flybymike]

Don't let the bleedin' currency police get you down..

[robin]

I agree that we over-regulate, and that being current according to LASORS or club guidelines is no guarantee of good airmanship.

But I wonder just how many of us would take to the much stricter ideas of currency and oversight that that gliding world takes for granted.

Over the last few years it is noticeable how the rising cost of flying has led to a cutback in the amount of flying at my airfield. Similarly we've noticed a drop-off in the standards of airmanship. Whether that is a causal link or not I can't say, but it would seem logical.

I would guess that G-BHZO is well-aware of this and takes care not to push it too far. I wish one of our syndicate partners had taken the same approach, but he suffered from delusions of adequacy and pushed it a touch too far.

He is now an ex-syndicate partner.

[Fuji Abound]

Don't let the bleedin' currency police get you down..


Well I agree with IO - I think the poster is on the margin of not being sufficiently current.

It is not really about currency police but a serious point. On the very few occasions I have fallen to be less than current and on the numerous occasions I have been asked to fly with pilots who consider themselves less than current I have taken an interest in how the rust sets in. It is very subtle and varies according to a raft of factors. Undoubtedly it means some can go longer than others. It also undoubtedly means you can cope most of the time but should anything go wrong or something unexpected happen it is then in particular that your capacity to deal with the issue is reduced.

[flybymike]

Don't let the bleedin' currency police get you down..

Well I agree with IO - I think the poster is on the margin of not being sufficiently current.



It wasn't IO who suggested he was not current.

None of us are accountable to the members of this forum for our currency. If one is current for the CAA, current for the flying club, and current for oneself, then that is good enough for me.

GA is losing pilots hand over fist by over regulation. Some of us can only afford the bare minimum and I would rather they do that than pack the whole thing in, leaving the wealthy few clocking up the "required number of hours which are acceptable to their peers."

[Fuji Abound]

Flybymike

Sorry, it wasnt IO, but peter272.

As to currency, I agree I would far rather see people continue to fly.

However, equally I would also rather pilots are aware of how and when their skills degrade (regardless of the regulations). A point comes at which most pilots struggle if anything unusual crops up. (and I am not saying this is the case with the initial poster) just making a general observation.

[beany]

Fuji - exactly.

Of course the regs are there and like them or not they have to be adhered to. Most people, I'm sure will have periods where they feel out of practice, and this may be within the 90 day period. The point is in being aware of one's limitations on any given day, and for whatever reason these may well vary from other days. It's the limitations you're not aware aren't up to scratch that become the most dangerous.

And yes, I'd rather continue to fly even if I could only just afford (financially) to stay current, but I wouldn't take non-pilot passengers if that was the case.

B

[IO540]

I think the currency regs for passenger carriage are good and correct.

I have read many accident reports where passengers got killed and it is especially sad because they probably though the pilot was really competent. Little did they know. Doubly sad when a kid get skilled.

And it rarely is a landing accident (which could happen to anybody); those are rarely fatal. Most fatal crashes involve some Grade A stupidity like squeezing between SFC and OVC 008 ... 006 ... 004 etc.

The thing which is very wrong with the UK CAA regs is that you cannot renew your passenger currency with another normal PPL holder who is current. The US regs allow you to do that, I believe, which is a much smarter risk management.

[peter272]

Just to clarify my earlier statement that seems to have gone awry in translation.

I am like most of us in that I don't always slavishly follow rules just because they are rules - I do tend to drive faster than I should, and sometimes I fly in conditions I really shouldn't have done.

What is clear, though, is that sometimes we are our own worst enemies and through lack of skill or knowledge or through over-confidence we push the limits from time to time.

I was at a Devon Strut meeting where Brian Lecomber made just that point. A highly experienced display pilot he actively sought out critiques of his display sequences. On one occasion he was shocked when someone pointed out just how close he had been to touching a wingtip when he thought he had a lot more space.

His point was that we as pilots should from time to time do the same before bad habits and sloppiness get us into trouble.

All of us whinge about the bi-annual instructor flight and will do almost anything to avoid having to do a check-out or LST.

Yet if you go to a gliding club all pilots, even the best, will have an annual flight and, if the CFI considers the conditions too 'interesting' on the day will suggest that a pilot doesn't fly or flies with an instructor. That goes for private owners too.

But in our world, once we are PPLs we tend to become precious about our skill and experience. We fly to the limits of the guidelines and think that that covers us legally.

My personal view is that we could be a lot less defensive about checkouts or asking for a critique of our technique. Whether or not that involves the 90-day rule or LASORS or the ANO I don't much care.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

The thing which is very wrong with the UK CAA regs is that you cannot renew your passenger currency with another normal PPL holder who is current.
The other pilot is P1, he is current so you are legal to be a passenger. You do your three take-offs and landings as sole manipulator of the controls - where's the rule saying you can't do this whilst you're a passenger?

[trex450]

what always stands out for me when I browse the accident/incident reports is the frequency of low hours in the "Commanders experience" detail. In this months magazine for example 50% of the reports that mention the currency of the pilot involved have little or no currency. It is similar every month.

[WestWind1950]

The other pilot is P1, he is current so you are legal to be a passenger. You do your three take-offs and landings as sole manipulator of the controls - where's the rule saying you can't do this whilst you're a passenger?

:confused:

sorry, but if you are a passenger, you are NOT allowed to manipulate the controls! And, since you cannot add that time to your log book, how are you to prove you did 3 landings? http://www.dorrie.de/images/smilies/SM099.gif

[mad_jock]

There is nothing in the UK ANO that precludes pax from operating the controls.

In fact the CAA encourages pilot's to give there partners practise after they have done the safety pilot course.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

sorry, but if you are a passenger, you are NOT allowed to manipulate the controls!
I asked "where's the rule", your assertion isn't a rule.
And, since you cannot add that time to your log book, how are you to prove you did 3 landings?
You can write what you like in your log book, and in particular you can record the three landings and use the record as evidence.

It's true that you can't count the time towards anything useful, but you don't want to - you just want to count the landings.

[hhobbit]

90 days is somewhat arbitrary, I think it depends on the individual, but presumably 90 days is generally suitable for the majority of pilots. What do you think would the 90 day rule be OK if the pilot was a really old dude?

But there has to be some guideline if not an actual rule. I am out of currency and therefore somewhat wary of myself. It'll be definitely three T & Gs maybe a lot more, and with handy winds to boot.

AIUI these have to be solo; I'm wondering if the safer option of another PPL not an instructor is allowed on this flight by JAR or FAA regs?

[peter272]

But then you fall under another set of guidelines.

If you fly a club aircraft, then club rules apply. In our local club it is a 28-day rule.

If you fly a group aircraft, then their rules apply. In our group it is a 42-day rule.

Of course, if you are a sole owner you can make your own rules, but then the 90-day rule will apply, however you choose to interpret it

[Fuji Abound]

Why so obsessed by rules?

The rules should be a long stop.

Be aware of when you feel less than current. Be aware of when the conditions are beyond those with which your currency will make you comfortable.

In my experience pilots with few hours and just within currency are inclined to be on the edge of being safe. Those with a thousand or more hours are able to deal with periods of low currency much better.

However you come to realise their are no hard and fast rules and no substiute for learning the signs that you are not as comfortable as you know you should be.

I play a few sports, including golf. I have good days and bad days, and I have days I know that its been too long since I last played. You just know in time. Flying is no different unless you want to pretend otherwise.

[IO540]

I think, Gertie, you need to be PIC when you log those landings etc. Otherwise, you could log them while sitting at home, and save a whole load of avgas... (gosh if I can think of that.................)

[Desert Strip Basher]

So is that the final word on the 3 landings - you can only log them as P1 or does gertrude have a point? I agree it would be far more practical being able to achieve them with another PPL holder who is current, though without a formal flight record in your logbook it seems like you'd need an instructor (but even then, who's to say you were the sole manipulator of the controls???)

[Piper.Classique]

Oh FFS We are talking three landings in three months. Not a lot, is it? If your club or group says more that is up to them. If you have your own aircraft then just do what you want for solo flying, you are the one arguing with your insurers. Stop gold plating the rules guys, please!

[24Carrot]

... achieve them with another PPL holder who is current, though without a formal flight record in your logbook it ...Your PPL mate books the aircraft out and in (airfield is in the paper trail).

He logs the flight as PIC, but minus the TOLs you did, (his logbook is in the paper trail).

You log the TOLs you did, (your logbook is in the paper trail).

If all the entries are true, what's the problem?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

So is that the final word on the 3 landings - you can only log them as P1
Of course not, IO540 is just plain wrong.

Even if I'm not right (which I believe I am, as that has been the outcome of the last 437 threads on this subject) he can't seriously be suggesting that you can't do it Pu/t!

[peter272]

Quote:
... achieve them with another PPL holder who is current, though without a formal flight record in your logbook it ...
Your PPL mate books the aircraft out and in (airfield is in the paper trail).

He logs the flight as PIC, but minus the TOLs you did, (his logbook is in the paper trail).

You log the TOLs you did, (your logbook is in the paper trail).

If all the entries are true, what's the problem?

Because in a single-crew aircraft he would be a passenger. You might be sitting in a seat when the POH says that PIC sits in the x seat.

The original point was that someone does a couple of hours in 60 days. To be current under club rules it is TOLs that count, not hours. The simplest thing is whenever you fly do 3 landings and take-offs.

That way you'll keep legal and current. If you do a fly-away, that'll be one landing, so do a touch and go on the return, or do a triangular flight.

How hard is that?

[Desert Strip Basher]

How hard is that? What - time travel???? The original point was that someone is ALREADY past the 90 day theshold and wondering what is the most straightforward way to become legal to carry passengers. Also note that earlier threads have stated the PIC doesn't have to perform the take-offs and landings - this seems to be the crux. Note this was not a querie of who & what represents safest conduct so please can the willy wavers leave this thread alone. Thanks.

[24Carrot]

Because in a single-crew aircraft he would be a passenger.But passengers can be sole manipulators of the controls.

Whether that is a good idea, is a different issue. I was talking about the "formal record" of what was done. I do have views about currency, but others, including you, have made them already.

[Okavango]

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-incommand
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.

This would seem to me to be fairly conclusive as a Safety Pilot is not permitted. So it's either on your own (ie PIC - manipulating the controls while someone else is 'acting PIC' is not permitted) or with an instructor. I think they use the 'sole manipulator of controls' statement simply to account for the fact that if using an instructor then you won't be P1. Hope this helps clear any confusion (and please don't take my word as gospel, it's just my understanding and I'm no more qualified than anyone else on this thread).

[BackPacker]

Interesting discussion. Here's the relevant bit of the ANO:

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.

So you cannot act as PIC of a passenger-carrying aircraft if you haven't done the 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).

This would seem to me to be fairly conclusive as a Safety Pilot is not permitted.

The carriage of a safety pilot is not something that the ANO specifically allows or forbids, for the simple reason that the whole concept of safety pilot is not defined in a legal sense (*). For legal purposes, the safety pilot is just a passenger and since you're not allowed to take passengers, you can't take a safety pilot either.

(*) Except within an article about simulated instrument flight. And the definition is then limited to that context.

[flybymike]

We come back to previous discussions which have held the view that (as usual) ANO takes precedence over Lasors, and that passengers may in fact do the "manipulating" and that there is not even a literal requirement to log the manipulation!

Either way it is plainly daft that a rated PPL (who may well be far more current on type in a privately owned aircraft than an instructor) should not be allowed to be present whilst the P1 gets himself/herself up to speed.

[jackdhc1]

The way i see the rule is 3 take offs & landings, so go up in the circuit on your own, first t/o= 1, a touch & go= 1 landing, 1 t/o, touch and go 2= 1 more landing and 1 t/o and final full stop, 1 landing... That is 3 t/o 3 landings which from what i have heard is sufficient. If you fly on flight time, that would be roughly 15 mins air time, if you do tech time it's 25 mins... Not that expensive over 3 months either. I know it won't do much for your airmanship (my idea is to practice it on flight sim- it helps keep awareness up) but the OP asked for the easiest way to stay current for SLF- that is it...
Hope this helps,
Regards,
Jack

[Ryan5252]

but the OP asked for the easiest way to stay current for SLF- that is it...

I may be missing something here but the OP never stated 'current' anywhere in his post - there is also a big difference is being 'current' and being 'legal'. If I done 3 takeoffs and landings 89 days ago, technically I am legal to carry passengers today - as to whether or not I would is another story. (Aside from the fact if one dosn't own their own aircraft I can't see any club allowing anyone to take one of their aircraft if the renter has flown for nearly 3 months...)

[peter272]

I know your airmanship wont do much (i practice it on flight sim though)

The mind boogles :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[flybymike]

The mind boogles

Boogles? Is that a new dance?

[jackdhc1]

Peter- yeah that was a typo... post edited now, and by currency I mean staying legal to carry passengers... probably not the best way to put it as being current is different for everyone...
Jack

[Whopity]

Either way it is plainly daft that a rated PPL (who may well be far more current on type in a privately owned aircraft than an instructor) should not be allowed to be present whilst the P1 gets himself/herself up to speed.So we have a situation of a passenger conducting landings and take offs from a seat they are not used to flying from, being supervised by a person with no instructional experience. What if the aircraft makes a heavy landing or worse? Who is in charge? The so called PIC could easily be charged with endangerment of the aircraft and his passenger!

The 90 day requirement was copied into the ANO from JAR-FCL where it had been copied from FAR-AIM. Sadly, nobody bothered to make the wording watertight. By inference, if a passenger flies an aircraft to gain experience required to meet a pilot recency requirement, that person is acting as a pilot. As there is only one pilot in an aircraft certified for single pilot operation the other person becomes a passenger unless their operating capacity has been defined by the aircraft operator.

This is what happens when rules are copied and shuffled around by people who don't understand them. It was only after the ANO was amended that people started to realise the implications.

[3 Point]

Gertrude and Wombat,

I absolutely agree with you. I see nothing in the regulations to say that a pilot needs to sit beside an instructor to make his three landings, it is extremely sensible that he should do so if possible but he can also sit beside another qualified pilot or he can fly them solo.

An instructor is required if giving instruction in flying "for the issue or renewal of a licence"; in this case the out of currency pilot has a valid licence so an instructor is not required to supervise him. A suitably experienced pilot can fill this role but h would be the aircraft commander the hours may not be counted by the other pilot for licence issue or revalidation. If both pilots have defined responsibilities in the operation of the aircraft they are both crew-members.

Just because an aeroplane has a minimum crew of one pilot does not mean that the operator can't allocate two crew-members if it suits his purpose. Minimum does not also mean maximum!!

Happy landings (all three of them!)

3 point

[Ringway Flyer]

Hang on a minute.... The rule states 'as sole manipulator of the controls'. Does that mean that, in the last 90 days, you must have done 3 SOLO take offs & landings? I hardly ever fly on my own! We usually - as I'm sure many others do - go to another airfield, have a bite to eat, and then return, each doing one leg. We are both, if that's the case, illegal, and have been for years! :uhoh:

[Genghis the Engineer]

No, it just means that the other chap shouldn't have touched the controls during the take off and landing.

And even that is nonsense, because the 90 day rule also applies to multi-crew aeroplanes, where both need to handle the controls at the same time: they work like that.

G

[Fake Sealion]

To summarise then....

If a pilots day 90 day rule has lapsed but his class rating is current, he must either...

A) Fly any aircraft in that class as PIC SOLO and undertake 3 or more take-offs and landings - touch and go's acceptable.

Or......

B) Fly any aircraft in that class as PIC but with an Instructor with him and likewise undertake 3 t/o and landings without the instructor's assistance.

Having done either A) or B) he can then fly as PIC with a passenger(s)

Must admit it does seem daft that he can do A) SOLO and log the 3 landings but he can't do it with a 12000 Hr ATPL with say 2000 hrs SEP class rating sat next to him......:rolleyes:

[BackPacker]

B) Fly any aircraft in that class as PIC but with an Instructor with him and likewise undertake 3 t/o and landings without the instructor's assistance.

No. If you have an instructor on board then the instructor logs PIC and the pilot logs PU/T (aka Dual).

If the lapsed pilot logs PIC, then the instructor is legally a passenger. Which is not allowed because the pilot is not current.

he can't do it with a 12000 Hr ATPL with say 2000 hrs SEP class rating sat next to him......

The argument in this thread is that it seems to be legal to do just that. Provided that said ATPL acts as PIC, and the lapsed pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls in his capacity as passenger. So that pilot logs the landings, but not the flight time.

[neilgeddes]

Can a CRI be used instead of a full instructor (FI)?

[Fake Sealion]

Not sure how the lapsed pilot actually "logs" the 3 landings/take offs in his log book without the flight time? He is technically a passenger after all.

Has anyone done this?

If so what is the format of the entry?

[Ryan5252]

I can't understand how this discussion is still ongoing. The 90 day rule is not complicated in any way, shape or form. You have to have done 3 TO/LDGs in the preceeding 90 days if you wish to carry passengers. Where is the confussion?

[BackPacker]

Can a CRI be used instead of a full instructor (FI)?

Yes.

Obviously as long as he's legally able, and current, to fly the plane as PIC.

Not sure how the lapsed pilot actually "logs" the 3 landings/take offs in his log book without the flight time? He is technically a passenger after all.

That was the main reason this thread went on for so long. The legal ability to land the plane as *passenger*, but as sole manipulator of the controls, and count those landings towards currency, was probably never intended by the regulators. You could possibly consider it a loophole. Because of this, the regulator never issued any guidance about how this should be logged.

I would simply log the landings, add the time to the "total" time column, but not to any other column (or may be a PAX or SNY column if I'm feeling like it) and put in the remarks what actually happened.

That does leave us with another question. If you, as the lapsed pilot, logged the landings as passenger, what does your ATPL friend, who acted as PIC, log? Only one person can log the landings so he now ends up with a 15 minute flight in which no landing whatsoever was made, apparently.

(On the other hand, the PIC role can change in-flight if necessary, and that would lead to a number of landings not being equal to the number of take-offs anyway. So it wouldn't be that odd.)

[MadMurdock]

Fake Sealion - I did exactly that last week.
A short flight with an instructor who presumably logged it as P1
I logged mine as P/UT and am now legal to carry passengers again as I was the sole manipulator of the controls.
Hope this helps.

Ryan - agree totally!