90 Day Rule - revisited [Archive]

dublinpilot

13th Jun 2013, 12:32

Some time after the flight, Pilot 2
stated that he had become aware that the group policy
was “an incorrect interpretation of the ANO” and that,
with the exception of the landing he demonstrated, he
was neither handling pilot nor PIC during the flight.

So the pilot 2 know that pilot 1 could not carry him as a passenger, so the only what that they could be onboard that flight was if they were in command of the flight.

Pilot 2 knew that club rules required them to operate as the commander of the aircraft.

The only way that they were on board was a pilot in command.

Yet *after* the accident they tried to worm their way out of any responsibility by claiming that they were not the pilot in command (except possibly when demonstrating a landing). :*

Not sure that I'd every want to fly with them. Man up and take your responsibility.

‘Pilot in command’ means a person who for
the time being is in charge of the piloting of an
aircraft without being under the direction of any
other pilot in the aircraft’
Note it doesn't mention who's handling the controls.

‘The holder may not fly as pilot in command of
such an aeroplane carrying passengers unless
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;….’

No mention of an instructor there.

‘The aircraft was certificated for single pilot
operation and therefore the only person who
can be a member of the flight crew in addition
to the handling pilot is a flying instructor who is
instructing or supervising the handling pilot. A
person who is not a flying instructor and not the
handling pilot would be a passenger.

The CAA have not quoted any rule here to confirm their 'opinion'. What makes that person handling the aircraft the pilot in command? If that were the case then a terrorist taking over the controls or an aircraft would become the pilot in command.

The CAA have made a statement but given no reason why a second person on board who isn't an instructor can not be the pilot in command. It's very unlike them not to quote a rule when making a statement which makes me thing that this comment was not given by someone senior.

A pilot wishing to regain his/her 90-day currency
to be entitled to carry passengers must complete at
least three take-offs and three landings as the sole
manipulator of the controls. These manoeuvres
must be flown either solo or under the supervision
of a flying instructor as a passenger cannot be
carried until the currency is regained.

Again saying so doesn't make it true. They have given no legal reference for their statement that an instructor is required. Clearly the out of currency pilot can not be the pilot in command, but they have given no reason why they can't be a passenger.

The rationale behind this rule is that a flying
instructor has been trained to fly an aircraft from
either seat and to know when to intervene if the
pilot under instruction or supervision appears to
be struggling to handle the aircraft safely. An
instructor is also aware that he or she remains
pilot in command during an instructional flight.’
This is firmly in the area of opinion. This rule was originally written by ICAO. How does this individual in the CAA know what ICAO's rationale was?

If their opinion that the rationale was so that an instructor could intervene if the pilot was struggling was correct then why is the pilot allowed to fly without an instructor? I would suggest (and it's only my opinion as much as that was the CAA person's opinion) that the rationale behind the rule is that an unwitting passenger is not subject to the dangers of flying with a pilot who hasn't flown recently. But I don't know what was in ICAO's mind any more than this CAA person does.

Who among us has ever seen the CAA write three paragraphs of legal interpretation without quoting one legal reference?:hmm:

In order to become the sole manipulator for the purposes of the exercise, you must be either PIC or Dual and unless the other pilot is an instructor, they automatically become a passenger whilst you manipulate the controls for the purpose of recency, and if you are outside 90 days then you are illegal! Plain simple and unambiguous.

Why do they automatically become a passenger? Why don't they retain their pilot in command status? What makes someone handling the controls of the aircraft a pilot in command?

gasax

13th Jun 2013, 12:48

This 'difficulty' has been in the rules since the 90 day requirement was introduced. There are any number of postings on here and Flyer spelling out the CAA interpretation which was given to the AAIB.

But I'm left in the same situation as dublinpilot. If it is legal to let a passenger fly the aircraft, then where is the regulation which says someone flying the aircraft is not the sole manipulator of the controls - if the PIC does not manipulate the controls?

'Cos from the comonsense point of view (I know the last thing one would expect is common sense in aviation regulation but,) if I do not manipulate the controls - then someone else must be doing it! If they are the sole manipulator of the controls, then that is what they are.

I too feel that the lack of a proper regulation quote suggests this is what they want it to say rather than what it actually says....

And again, long before the 90 day requirements most groups had these sort of sensible arrangements to try and ensure currency.

robin

13th Jun 2013, 13:32

So, before we drown in our personal interpretation of this rule - my point is whether or not, in this case, the flight was deemed illegal.

I would guess the CAA wouldn't prosecute given the nature of the injuries and loss, but did the insurers pay out?

If they didn't then it would be clear that to risk doing what these group members did is pure folly, regardless of our interpretation of the rules.

gasax

13th Jun 2013, 13:57

If the CAA had given references then we could plainly see the flight was illegal. They did not, they gave an opinion.

On that basis the insurance either has to engage in legal argument or pay. given the costs of 'legal argument' paying is virtually always cheaper.

If it was clearly illegal, then why would the CAA not prosecute?

Mariner9

13th Jun 2013, 14:05

I always thought the thinking behind the 90 day rule a bit odd. If the CAA deem a pilot not safe enough to carry pax unless 3 t/o & landings had been done, why do they not afford the same legislative protection to the pilot by mandating (for example) an instructional flight?

A non-current pilot could simply regain pax-carrying currency by doing 3 solo circuits in the current system. They could be the worst circuits ever flown but it would still be apparently acceptable. The CAA are therefore relying on the pilot's own assessment of his/her ability to safely fly the aircraft following the 3 circuits.

Given that the pilots own assessment is required for each and every flight in any event, why have any 90-day legislation at all?

wb9999

13th Jun 2013, 14:49

dublinpilot, one possibility (purely guesswork here) is because the 2 pilots stated to the AAIB who was P1 before they realised that the person in the left hand seat was not entitled to be P1. If they had already told the AAIB they cannot go back on that when advised of their error.

mad_jock

13th Jun 2013, 16:11

The rationale behind this rule is that a flying
instructor has been trained to fly an aircraft from
either seat and to know when to intervene if the
pilot under instruction or supervision appears to
be struggling to handle the aircraft safely. An
instructor is also aware that he or she remains
pilot in command during an instructional flight

Yes and suddenly two days after there FI rating is up they develop into a squishy ball with no ability to suddenly fly in the RHS.

Level Attitude

13th Jun 2013, 16:25

I notice the "Check Pilot" only had one hour in the previous 90 Days.
Hopefully that included 3 T/Os and Lndgs else neither pilot was legal.
Also - not that current themselves given the responsibility of
"checking out" someone else.

I have never understood how/or why some people believed that
"unofficial" / unloggable flying" as a passenger could then be used for
the "official" / legal purpose of regaining currency to carry passengers.

Perhaps the CAA should suggest to EASA that the wording is changed
to "Solo" or "Dual (with a qualified Instructor)"

Heston

13th Jun 2013, 16:38

Perhaps the CAA should suggest to EASA that the wording is changed
to "Solo" or "Dual (with a qualified Instructor)"

Good idea, although it would still need the "as sole manipulator of the controls" stipulation in order to exclude take-offs and landings flown by the instructor!

robin

13th Jun 2013, 16:51

Don't get EASA involved!!!!

englishal

13th Jun 2013, 20:25

Soooo...if you are being "checked out" on a brand new type with a 500HP radial engine up front (that is still only a SEP) and you are legal in all respects but never flown anything other than a C150, then it is ok for the RHS "PIC" to wrestle controls from the "sole manipulator" in the event of a botched approach and landing, but it is not ok for someone who is competent on their C150 to sit in with an uncurrent pilot who could also be equally competent on the C150, albeit a little rusty?

Seems to me that it is rather sensible to ask your mate to come up with you and spot you don't make any silly mistakes.....

Anyway I have been on many flights where the only "sole manipulator of the controls" is a black box for a lot of the flight and the PIC might be sat in the RHS........

steve1234

13th Jun 2013, 21:29

foxmoth

13th Jun 2013, 21:53

Soooo...if you are being "checked out" on a brand new type with a 500HP radial engine up front (that is still only a SEP) and you are legal in all respects but never flown anything other than a C150, then it is ok for the RHS "PIC" to wrestle controls from the "sole manipulator" in the event of a botched approach and landing

Actually, no, in this case, unless the other pilot is an instructor then the "check pilot" is technically only there as an advisor - though as PIC you can accept him taking control to save the aircraft - but that is down to you as PIC, in the other example you cannot be PIC so cannot be flying in the first place.

Whopity

13th Jun 2013, 22:44

If it is legal to let a passenger fly the aircraft, then where is the regulation which says someone flying the aircraft is not the sole manipulator of the controls - if the PIC does not manipulate the controls?There is a difference between not being illegal, and being legal. It is not illegal to let a passenger fly the aeroplane, but the experience gained cannot be counted for recency purposes if the claimant is not a crew member. 90 day recency means they have acted as a pilot for the purpose of 3 landings and take offs. If they are not qualified to do this with a person on board who meets the legal definition of a passenger, then they have two choices, gain the experience solo, or with a person qualified in accordance with Art 80.

This regulation came straight from the JAA not the CAA, if you think it is badly worded, look at Part FCL, it is riddled with similar English written by people whose mother tongue is not English. The CAA can only give an opinion, it takes a court to give a ruling.

flybymike

13th Jun 2013, 23:13

As remarked earlier in the thread, why bother having the rule at all.

We all managed just as safely for decades before the rule was introduced by JAR around the year 2000. The CAA's own safety review showed no improvement in safety statistics following introduction of the rule (or for that matter introduction of BFRs, annual MEP tests etc) and if "uncurrent" I would rather take another group member pilot with me who was familiar with the aircraft than take some instructor who may never have even sat in that particular type before.

Torque Tonight

13th Jun 2013, 23:28

It is high time that the 90 day rule was rewitten in unambiguous terms. This question has been subject to inumerable threads and if reasonably knowledgable, intelligent pilots can't reach a concensus, then the text is at fault and needs to be changed. The CAA 'clarification' of the rule is one interpretation, whilst other interpretations could equally be drawn. Until the rule is rewritten in such a way that interpretation is not necessary, or a legal precedent is set then this question will run and run.

For example, if the CAA demand that a pilot flies his 3 takeoffs and landings either solo as PIC or under dual instruction then that is exactly what it should say. The phrase 'sole manipulator of the controls' as quoted by the CAA is, as far as I can tell, not rigorously defined in the ANO or FCL and is therefore defined by a common sense understanding of the English language. That would be 'the person who handles the controls' with no qualifiers regarding crew/passenger/licence/currency status.

The rules provided in the report (as opposed to the opinion) would not preclude the PIC allowing the passenger to solely manipulate the controls to carry out the takeoffs and landings. Handling pilot is not synonymous with PIC. Equally, being 'in charge of the piloting of an aircraft' does not mean that you are physically handling it yourself.

I am not surprised if the CAA have chosen not to test that interpretation in court and set a precedent, as frankly I do not think it would stand up.

wb9999

14th Jun 2013, 08:57

Perhaps the AAIB need to do the manning up? A pretty pointless report. I heard the CAA wrote to that flying group saying the check pilot wasn't even legally entitled to fly the plane which if true raises all sorts of questions.............but that's not mentioned in the AAIB report.

steve1234, the "check pilot" was not a pilot on this flight - only a passenger. So the status of whether he was legal to fly the aircraft or not is not an issue for the AAIB to look into. It is for the CAA to enforce the regulations - not the AAIB.

Mariner9

14th Jun 2013, 09:35

It is high time that the 90 day rule was rewitten in unambiguous terms

Or high time that it was dropped altogether. Let pilots self-police their currency. They already have to self-police weather suitability, aircraft serviceability, route suitability etc etc.

robin

14th Jun 2013, 09:47

Quote:
Perhaps the AAIB need to do the manning up? A pretty pointless report. I heard the CAA wrote to that flying group saying the check pilot wasn't even legally entitled to fly the plane which if true raises all sorts of questions.............but that's not mentioned in the AAIB report.

steve1234, the "check pilot" was not a pilot on this flight - only a passenger. So the status of whether he was legal to fly the aircraft or not is not an issue for the AAIB to look into. It is for the CAA to enforce the regulations - not the AAIB.

Hang on - I'm getting really confused now.

So for the purposes of the flight, the group rules state that the pilot who was current was the PIC. He let the passenger fly LH seat and happily prang the aircraft, even though the LH seat pilot was out of currency.

Straightforward enough. I'm sure most of us have let our friends and fellow pilots drive our aircraft, and some of the more experienced ones even land it. All well and good, but we remain PIC and the hours are ours.

But then to say that the passenger is able to book the time or even to regain currency is a bit far-fetched. It may be an interpretation of an ambiguous CAA rule, but some common sense needs to be applied.

In this case the pilot in the LH seat was an 88 hr pilot with 8 on type and 0 hours in the past 90 days (hardly experienced), and the check pilot also out of group currency, though well experienced on the type.

Does seem to be a bit of an attempt to flout, not only the spirit of the CAA guidelines, but also group rules.

And to those who say we should self-police and drop the guidelines, we have here 2 seriously injured pilots and a broken aircraft possibly because they felt they were above the rules laid down.

Mariner9

14th Jun 2013, 10:11

And to those who say we should self-police and drop the guidelines, we have here 2 seriously injured pilots and a broken aircraft possibly because they felt they were above the rules laid down.

How would following the rule have helped the accident pilot? He could have done the circuit solo and stuffed it in just as he did, but entirely in accordance with the CAA rules.

robin

14th Jun 2013, 10:40

In my group, being low-time on type, he'd have been flying with an instructor under group rules

Mariner9

14th Jun 2013, 10:49

An entirely sensible group rule Robin, and an excellent example of self policing being better than legislation IMHO.

cjhants

14th Jun 2013, 11:02

I am sure that this group, and others in a similar position, will need to clarify the group rules to read something like:

If you are not current under the CAA 90 day rule, you must first regain your currency under the supervision of a qualified instructor (more business for Irv at EGHP?). Once current, you must then take a flight as PIC with a group check pilot to gain currency on our aircraft.

Too simple?

I am lucky enough in my most recent group to have the availability of a group member who is also an instructor.

PA28181

14th Jun 2013, 11:10

"you must first regain your currency under the supervision of a qualified instructor"

Why? Do the flight solo.

cjhants

14th Jun 2013, 11:23

But as I understand this group`s rules, if you are outside their check period, you cannot fly the aircraft solo or otherwise until you have been re-checked. So it has to be under instruction.

Mike Cross

14th Jun 2013, 11:51

I can't accept the CAA "clarification" as correect and I have concerns over the conduct of the investigation.

The evidence points to Pilot 2 being PIC. Pilot 1 believes he was, and had good reason for that belief. The group rule backs up his position.

The fact that Pilot 2 subsequently changed his tune suggests that the investigation was not open-minded, fair and objective. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Pilot 2's retraction came about because of suggestions put to him during the investigation, i.e. the witness was led.

Leaving aside for the moment that argument and assuming we have a situation where PIC is qualified and accepts that he is carrying out the role of PIC.

For the passenger to regain his ability to carry passengers the rule clearly and unambiguously states that
‘The holder may not fly as pilot in command of
such an aeroplane carrying passengers unless
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;

Nothing in there requires him to be a member of the flight crew and the term "sole manipulator of the controls" is not defined so it has the meaning that a resonable person would ascribe to it. If I let my passneger handle the controls then he or she is "sole manipulator" until I or someone else manipulate a control, e.g. by adjusting trim or throttle. There is no prohibition on my allowing a passenger to manipulate the controls, however as PIC I remain responsible for the safety of the flight.

If the passenger is not required to be a member of the flight crew then the CAA argument about an instructor is irrelevant.

It might be argued that the PIC needs an instructors rating under Art 80 of the ANO which deals with the requirement for an instructor to hold the rating, however Art 80 starts off by saying

80
(1) This article applies to instruction in flying
given to any person 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 ra
ting or qualification in a pilot's licence

As this flight was not for these purposes Art 80 does not apply.

The whole thing smacks of someone in authority who knows what he thinks the rules ought to be rather than what they are.

None of which should detract from the fact that the PIC is responsible for the safe conduct of the flight. There needs to be a formal handover of control when one pilot ceases to be PIC and another assumes the role.

Similarly there nees to be a formal handover when PIC hands over the controls to someone else and when he takes them back.

Both parties need to clearly understand and accept the handover, and the difference between the two scenarios. If there is a change of PIC then the former PIC cannot give instructions to the new PIC or unilateraly take back control.

tmmorris

14th Jun 2013, 13:03

It all reminds me of a spat I had with the CAA after a medical, in which I had discussed my use of Ceterizine for hayfever (which makes some people, but not me, drowsy). My AME was happy with me taking it. However, as it was on the medical form, I then received a letter from a nurse at the CAA telling me Ceterizine was not allowed for flight crew, but not quoting any authority for this. I gave in - I wasn't up for the fight - and now use Loratadine, which means my hayfever is less well controlled and more of a flight safety risk. Ho hum.

There are definitely people in the CAA* who wish the regulations said something they don't, and so give their opinions as if they were facts.

*not just the CAA, I have the same problem with other organisations I deal with.

mad_jock

14th Jun 2013, 13:19

I always thought of the 90 day to be a protection for pax that were clueless.

I always thought that another licensed pilot of what ever flavour you like and even if they were only ATPL 747 rated knows the risks and would know that the person was uncurrent. Therefore a licensed pilot should be allowed on board outside the 90days but not anyone not holding a current license.

The only reason why I say current is to get something definite of yes no.

robin

14th Jun 2013, 13:24

The fact that Pilot 2 subsequently changed his tune suggests that the investigation was not open-minded, fair and objective. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Pilot 2's retraction came about because of suggestions put to him during the investigation, i.e. the witness was led.

...and your evidence for that is..???

What I would say is never to trust a colleague not to drop you in it when it all goes to worms.

When we set up our group many years ago, the insurers required a copy of our group rules, part of which stated currency rules.

If this incident had happened in our group I have a fear that we'd be having to get the money from the surviving group members.

foxmoth

14th Jun 2013, 13:34

If you are not current under the CAA 90 day rule, you must first regain your currency under the supervision of a qualified instructor (more business for Irv at EGHP?). Once current, you must then take a flight as PIC with a group check pilot to gain currency on our aircraft.

Why should he need to fly with a group check pilot? All group aircraft that I have seen the insurance covers instructors and group members with an instructor, just find a competent instructor, there are plenty around (of which Irv is one) who is capeable in your aircraft, and get the currency done with him.

Mike Cross

14th Jun 2013, 14:13

...and your evidence for that is..???

Status of Pilot 2
The investigation obtained evidence indicating that
Pilot 2 performed the role of PIC until Pilot 1 had
carried out three takeoffs and three landings to satisfy
the 90-day currency requirement in accordance with
the group policy. Some time after the flight, Pilot 2
stated that he had become aware that the group policy
was “an incorrect interpretation of the ANO” and that,
with the exception of the landing he demonstrated, he
was neither handling pilot nor PIC during the flight.

It's the "some time after the flight bit" which suggests that at the time he thought he was PIC and later decided that he was not. I'm not stating as a fact that he was led to that decision by the investigation, simply suggesting that it's difficult to escape that conclusion.

cjhants

14th Jun 2013, 14:21

Fox - I think these are just the rules for this group. If you havn`t flown for 60 days? (will check with mate who used to be in group) you have to go up for a check ride.

foxmoth

14th Jun 2013, 15:05

I can understand that, and if over 60 days and under 90 then it can be done with a group member who is not an instructor as the person being checked is still legal (and the other pilot is STILL technically a passenger), but I cannot see any reason for a check with a group member if one has been done by an instructor.
The only reason I could see for this would be if the aircraft in question was a particularly exotic or strange handling one with no instructors around who were considered competent on it.

Pittsextra

14th Jun 2013, 15:14

I'm not sure this is all that complex is it? Couple of guys, one with little experience full stop, the other with some but not recent experience piled in.

I know its fashionable to blame the CAA but I can't see how in this case! The rule is pretty clear unless your motivation is to blur it.

If you add some basic airmanship into the mix its not hard.

Torque Tonight

14th Jun 2013, 15:27

I don't think anyone is questioning the fact that this aircraft crashed because of a mishandled go-around, and of course that is not the CAA's fault.

The point of this thread is the understanding and application of the 90 day rule. You say it is 'not all that complex' and 'the rule is pretty clear'. If that was true the rule wouldn't have generated such a volume of discussion over the years. The rule is not clear to anyone who looks closely at the letter of the law, but it could easily be made crystal clear - and some of the responsibility for not doing that must fall on the CAA. Additionally if the 'spirit of the law' as the CAA see it, is not in alignment with the 'letter of the law' as it is written, then they should jolly well rewrite it.

Pittsextra

14th Jun 2013, 15:34

what part is unclear?

fin100

14th Jun 2013, 15:36

Maybe this needs to be viewed in light of the groups accident record. 4 total losses in 6 years. http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/511990-anyone-heard-popham-flying-group.html Pilot 1 is undertaking a check ride with Pilot 2 who in addition to being the check pilot is also head honcho of said flying group. Group rule says if your not 90 current then the check pilot will be P1 UNTIL 3 take offs and landings. Pilot 1 has no reason to suspect the arrangement is illegal after all Pilot 2 runs the flying group! All is fine and dandy until the CAA in its wisdom says NO - passengers cant log time and, therefore, you could do a hundred landings as a passenger and still not be current. SO Pilot 2 claims - er well I was only a passenger never had command. (also saves skin on insurance claim - no future accident record) Pilot 1 hung out to dry! Also rumor has it that two members of this sorry group were far from happy about the accident and the groups handling of safety and dodgy practices that they reported their concerns to the CAA - result was they were thrown out of said group by Pilot 2

24Carrot

14th Jun 2013, 15:58

what part is unclear?

The part that the AAIB needed clarified?:ugh:

Pittsextra

14th Jun 2013, 16:08

Yes in the same way McDonalds etc put "Caution this hot cup of coffee is hot".

Unless you want to appear here (http://www.darwinawards.com/) I don't think there is very much ambiguous about unless you are seeking to avoid the obvious after the event....

‘The holder may not fly as pilot in command of such an aeroplane carrying passengers unless 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;….’

caroberts

14th Jun 2013, 16:10

Let's be honest - this sort of rule is only unclear to those who don't want it to mean what it clearly does.

Pittsextra

14th Jun 2013, 16:11

Completely agree.

RTN11

14th Jun 2013, 16:43

Let's be honest - this sort of rule is only unclear to those who don't want it to mean what it clearly does.

Well said.

If a group needs a policy where one member is able to check other members out for the 90 day rule, they should fund that members CRI rating as part of their costs, then everyone is happy and you're not trying to operate in some grey area of the law relying on misinterpretation of the rules.

Pittsextra

14th Jun 2013, 17:14

Maybe this needs to be viewed in light of the groups accident record. 4 total losses in 6 years. Anyone heard of the the Popham Flying Group? (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/511990-anyone-heard-popham-flying-group.html) Pilot 1 is undertaking a check ride with Pilot 2 who in addition to being the check pilot is also head honcho of said flying group. Group rule says if your not 90 current then the check pilot will be P1 UNTIL 3 take offs and landings. Pilot 1 has no reason to suspect the arrangement is illegal after all Pilot 2 runs the flying group! All is fine and dandy until the CAA in its wisdom says NO - passengers cant log time and, therefore, you could do a hundred landings as a passenger and still not be current. SO Pilot 2 claims - er well I was only a passenger never had command. (also saves skin on insurance claim - no future accident record) Pilot 1 hung out to dry! Also rumor has it that two members of this sorry group were far from happy about the accident and the groups handling of safety and dodgy practices that they reported their concerns to the CAA - result was they were thrown out of said group by Pilot 2

Maybe I'm reading this post as it was intended but I don't see why anyone would want to be able to have a situation where passengers could log time?

As for the group seems that being "thrown" out of it just saved walking away on the basis Pilot 2 sounds a complete idiot and ultimately seems to have come to a natural conclusion?

Torque Tonight

14th Jun 2013, 17:27

I won't try to provide the counter argument to your viewpoint Pitts as it has already been written and if you didn't get it the first time you probably won't get it the second time. Whilst I will not insist that any particular interpretation is gospel, surely you can see that ambiguity exists. These threads and the CAA needing to provide a 'clarification' to the AAIB is evidence of that.

The rules, as you yourself quoted, state 'sole manipulator of the controls'. If it means PIC solo, or under dual instruction, why doesn't it say that? That would surely remove any doubt.

As I'm sure you know it is the letter of the law that matters and any semi competent lawyer could blow the CAA's opinion right out of the water. A lot of people read these rules and see what they think the rules are meant to mean, rather than what is actually written down.

Torque Tonight

14th Jun 2013, 17:31

There is certainly no question about pax being able to log time. That cannot happen. The rules, as they are written would seem to enable a pax to handle the aircraft, thus potentially meeting the requirements for the 90 day), while a current pilot was PIC in the other seat. The 90 day rule requires a number of takeoffs and landings, with no requirement for logged time and no specified crew role.

wb9999

14th Jun 2013, 17:34

Pittsextra

14th Jun 2013, 17:35

TT - I think you hit the nail on the head when you go down the lawyer route.

I'm not seeking to get into more arguments but speaking for myself I'm less interested in how the lawyers might react and more interested in being safe.

In the end - and using the example here as it was the context of the thread - I don't think it is terribly difficult to understand what was required or expected.

Have you flown in the last 90 days? No
Am I flying alone? No
Is the person in the aircraft an instructor? No
Am I P1 or is he P1? .......

I mean OK you can dance around this with a variety and try and be smart with words. In the end that AAIB report suggests there were some serious injuries. That is tells you all you need to know.

fin100

14th Jun 2013, 17:45

My point was merely that Pilot 2 (the so called check pilot) was operating on the basis that Pilot 1 was a passenger until he completed 3 take offs and landings. A position which is not tenable. Pilot 2 presumably, encouraged Pilot 1 to undertake the flight. The 90 day rule, as has been said is not complex and is only a problem if you're trying to wriggle and cheat - There are plenty of instructors available. And being thrown out would be the best solution especially since Pilot 2 is still the main check pilot and group chairman and the group is an unincorporated body so god help them in the event of a fatality!

Torque Tonight

14th Jun 2013, 17:46

Pitts, I agree we all want to be safe. It is clear that the pilots involved in this accident were of low experience, and made mistakes. I would suggest that by having a current pilot group member in the other seat, there was a better chance of a happy ending than had the pilot been re-qualifying solo. The other guy ideally would have told him to watch his speed as he mishandled the go-around. Solo that definitely could not have happened.

If we are talking about the spirit of the 90 day rule and its intentions, I would suggest that it is to protect layman passengers who have no knowledge of the risks of flying from insufficiently current pilots. Placing a current pilot next to the uncurrent one is a very different situation from placing an ignorant passenger next to the uncurrent pilot. Highly experienced pilots are constrained by this rule just as much as the very inexperienced.

Finn

The 90 day rule, as has been said is not complex and is only a problem if you're trying to wriggle and cheat I fundamentally disagree with the implication you are making. If you can prove your point with reference to the rules please do so.

fin100

14th Jun 2013, 18:15

Sole manipulator of the controls makes it more confusing BUT the need for 3 takeoffs and landings is straight forward. It can be done solo or with an instructor if not 90 day current or with passengers if current, in order to maintain currency. Its quite clear from the AAIB report that Pilot 1 was out of 90 day currency. Pilot 2 was aware of this and undertook the flight as P1 allowing Pilot 1 to operate the controls UNTIL 3 take offs and landing had taken place. The CAA informed Pilot 2 that this position was illegal so Pilot 2 changes his story to - I was only a passenger - its Pilot 1 that was P1. I guess the CAA don't want to get involved here - I think it would have been different had there been fatalities

Torque Tonight

14th Jun 2013, 18:26

You see, you haven't actually referenced the rules. You've just re-stated an opinion.

I guess the CAA don't want to get involved here - I think it would have been different had there been fatalities

Why not? If it was illegal why not prosecute in this case? If there were fatalities there would have been no-one alive to prosecute, so no day in court. This would have been the ideal opportunity to set legal precedent.

Sillert,V.I.

14th Jun 2013, 18:41

Why is there confusion? It seems very straightforward to me.
Only one person can be PIC in an aircraft certified for single pilot operations. Anybody else is an instructor or passenger.

I'm still confused.

Just because an aircraft is certified for single pilot operation doesn't mean it can't be operated by two pilots. Loads of business-class turboprops & light bizjets are certified for single pilot operation but normally flown by two. Only one person can be PIC, but the second person could be a second pilot but neither instructor nor passenger.

The CAA have made a statement but given no reason why a second person on board who isn't an instructor can not be the pilot in command. It's very unlike them not to quote a rule when making a statement which makes me thing that this comment was not given by someone senior.

Why do they automatically become a passenger? Why don't they retain their pilot in command status? What makes someone handling the controls of the aircraft a pilot in command?

Exactly. Thousands of aircraft certified for single pilot operation are routinely flown by two pilots and about 50% of the time, the PIC is the non-handling pilot.

fin100

14th Jun 2013, 18:56

I agree that the wording of the rule is far from satisfactory - it seems to have been taken out of the FAA rules. But I can also see that implicit within any rule that requires a set number of takeoffs/landings there is a requirement to log these. Surely it is a QED. If there is a requirement to do it then to be asked to demonstrate compliance is assumed. Ive never had a ramp check in the UK but I assume there is the ability to perform one. Additionally, these questions really only become of concern after an accident. My point concerning fatalities was not just about those in the aircraft, rather if said aircraft had come down a few metres to the north on the A303 there could well have been serious damage - a Daily Mail - horror light aircraft crash kills innocents

fin100

14th Jun 2013, 19:06

I'm still confused.

Just because an aircraft is certified for single pilot operation doesn't mean it can't be operated by two pilots. Loads of business-class turboprops & light bizjets are certified for single pilot operation but normally flown by two. Only one person can be PIC, but the second person could be a second pilot but neither instructor nor passenger. Yes but they can have 2 crew - P1-P2 the type in question SEP is only certified for one pilot so only an instructor or examiner can have any status other than passenger

Crash one

14th Jun 2013, 19:31

I thought this kak had been done to death several times.
If you are not an INSTRUCTOR you are a PASSENGER, It doesn't matter if you are a 50000hr ex Mil ATPL Bush pilot, Unless it says INSTRUCTOR on your licence & INSTRUCTOR is up to date you are still a passenger & cannot sit in the aircraft in any of the seats. "Sole manipulator" is meant to mean "the instructor shouldn't help".
Shirley it ain't rocket science, unless as somone said you are trying to fiddle it.

Heston

14th Jun 2013, 19:40

Crash one

14th Jun 2013, 19:54

Pretty much the same as "Can I charge passengers if I have a PPL?" No you bloody can't, suck it up or get a CPL.
Isn't AIR LAW taught anymore?

fin100

14th Jun 2013, 20:04

Isn't AIR LAW taught anymore? Apparently not!

What would have the CAA made of it if Pilot 2 had fessed up and done the decent thing and admitted to being P1? Instead of changing his story and screwing the low hour guy.

BEagle

14th Jun 2013, 20:38

Let's be honest - this sort of rule is only unclear to those who don't want it to mean what it clearly does.

Well put!

Next thing, we'll hear people whining about whether they can log a 'regaining recency' flight as PIC if flown with an FI....:rolleyes:

wb9999

14th Jun 2013, 20:41

Sillert,V.I., CAP804 is very clear on when you can log P1 or P2 time.

Co-pilot (P2) time can only be logged on "aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft".

(CAP804 Section 1 Part E page 3, paragraph 3.2)

The aircraft in this incident does not require more than one pilot, so "P2" (the AAIB do not use that phrase, and call him a passenger) is either an instructor or passenger.

BabyBear

14th Jun 2013, 21:32

Crash, thank F*** for some straight talking. I was beginning to think I was in a gang of not very many, even those I thought experienced seem to have lost the point.

BB

Crash one

14th Jun 2013, 21:51

Babybear, I sometimes wonder that too.
Maybe we should start a club/gang called "Get a *kin grip":ugh:

airpolice

15th Jun 2013, 06:53

I think I know what the rule means, and Crash One & Beagle have summed it up well. However, the wording of the rule ought to be changed. The preceding 90 days, means the 90 days before today. The rule is not about the last 90 days, it is about the preceding 90 days.

So. If I wake up this morning, without three take offs & landings in that 90 day window, then it matters not what I do with an instructor, or solo, today, I can't take passengers until tomorrow.

That is surely not what the rule makers meant, but it is what they have written.

wb9999

15th Jun 2013, 07:04

A day is a unit of time equal to 24 hours. It is not midnight to midnight (that is called a civil day). So you can fly with passengers immediately after completing 3 take offs and landings.

Heston

15th Jun 2013, 08:51

I think it would be better to redefine 90 days in a more precise way. The mean solar day is 86,400 seconds, so shouldn't the rule be re-written as "three take off and landings as sole manipulator of the controls in the preceding 7,776,000 seconds?"

Or should the definition be based on the sidereal day? 23hr 56 min 4.1s instead of 24hr?

Oh but unfortunately day length varies, see Fluctuations in the length of day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluctuations_in_the_length_of_day)
How should the rule take that into account?

mad_jock

15th Jun 2013, 09:01

Or how about 3 takeoffs and landings as PIC or Dual.

Heston

15th Jun 2013, 09:14

Nah, MJ, thats far too simple and sensible...

24Carrot

15th Jun 2013, 09:52

Let's be honest - this sort of rule is only unclear to those who don't want it to mean what it clearly does.

Not so!

Personally, I follow mad_jock's interpretation, but I still think the rule is unclear. :)

englishal

15th Jun 2013, 10:06

Actually to be pedantic, a day can mean many things from 86400 seconds, to the consecutive period of time during which the Sun is above the horizon, the span of time it takes for the Earth to make one entire rotation and is actually 4 minutes less than 24 hrs. So do the rules mean the last 24 hrs or 23 h 56 mins?! ;) If you were flying at 23h 58 mins, could you be prosecuted :D

Rules are rules, and this rule is quite simple to follow, and even I have a complete understanding of it. I am not convinced though, that this rule as it stands, is the most beneficial to flight safety. I'd much rather it was worded:

Blah blah..."either solo, with a flight instructor or with another safety pilot who is qualified and current on type". No additional passengers may be carried.

Co-pilot (P2) time can only be logged on "aircraft on which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft".

This can be ambiguous too. You can get Single pilot ops, where the aeroplane is operated by one pilot, or the operation can be a two pilot op with both captain and co-pilot onboard the same aeroplane.

24Carrot

15th Jun 2013, 10:20

Interesting entries in the two logbooks for the third case. Presumably:

"Self",PIC, 0.6 hours, 0 0 TOLs
"PIC's-name",Blank?, 0.0 hours, 3 3 TOLs

wb9999

15th Jun 2013, 10:34

Rules are rules, and this rule is quite simple to follow, and even I have a complete understanding of it. I am not convinced though, that this rule as it stands, is the most beneficial to flight safety. I'd much rather it was worded:

Blah blah..."either solo, with a flight instructor or with another safety pilot who is qualified and current on type". No additional passengers may be carried.

I sort of agree with the CAA's rationale behind requiring the flight(s) to regain currency to be either solo or with an instructor. How many PPLs are used to flying in the RHS and and knowing when and how to take control when things are not going to plan? Instructors are trained for that. PPLs are not.

Then there's the ambiguity that would arise with a safety pilot. Who would log the time as in command, what would the other pilot log it as (not P2, so what else) etc etc? Considering how some people are trying to get around the current, simple rules, the less ambiguity the better.

Crash one

15th Jun 2013, 11:34

Airpolice Some of this may be a bit "tongue in cheek" but
Jesus H Christ, How difficult can it be. Do you really believe that doing 3TO & landings today means you can't fly pax till tomorrow?
This smacks of what I would call tha "Ahh But" culture. A bit like the spelling police on here, people today spend their life trying their best to misinterpret every thing. If it's not absolutely black & white then you've got it wrong. "Ahh But , that's not what you actually said!!"
No wonder the CAA will have to re-write the rule, it's because people are too bloody thick to understand English.
I haven't flown my a/c since November cos of wx & then medical issues I am however current cos I did an hour + with an instructor inc at least 3 touch & go in a 172 a couple of weeks ago. Now if I were to take a pax in my taildragger today & rolled it in a ball, I wonder what Traffords would have to say. Legal? yes. Comments?

steve1234

15th Jun 2013, 11:37

A thorough report would have shown that the person who organised the check flight had no legal right to fly the aircraft by virture of not being a benficial owner. Because that kind of information is not publiclly avialable it is impossible for the pilot being checked to have known that. As it stands after this report there's nothing to stop some poor sucker falling into the same trap. That kind of detail is relevant to flight safety.

englishal

15th Jun 2013, 12:09

Do you have to be an owner of an aeroplane to fly it?!

mad_jock

15th Jun 2013, 12:22

To be honest I am just trying to think of all this special training I did for sorting out duff landings that I did in my instructors rating.

Nope I just remember doing lots of S&L 1,2 and effects of control and running through the other exercises.

The dealing with "oh :mad:" moments was picked up on the job. Pretty quick mind.

And I really fail to see how this ability to say "I have control" has gone 1 day after three years.

airpolice

15th Jun 2013, 12:31

Crash One, it's not difficult, it's badly worded.

The term "preceding 90 days" is wrong. I suspect that anyone prosecuted for this would be able to argue successfully that the intent of the rule makers was that after flying three t/o & landings in the last 90 days, you are good to go with pax.

Even if one of the circuits was this morning and the other 2 were 89 days ago. I certainly don't have an issue with the case that sparked this topic, and I'm sure it was the subject of an earlier topic about lying on AAIB/Insurance forms.

Club rules are one thing, but the law is another. In the instance referred to here, I wonder if a tech log entry was made before they took off stating who was PIC. Obviously it can't be the guy out of 90 day currency as he's not allowed to take passengers.

As I understand it, it shouldn't be of any use to them to have the other guy as PIC as that prevents the guy needing the three landings being unable to log them as he would just be a passenger. If he was to do the three circuits during that flight he'd be carrying a pax while doing so.

The original incident would have been better handled by either having an instructor fly with him, or he uses an aircraft that he's already checked out on to do three solo circuits before flying the incident aircraft as PIC with an experienced guy alongside to "advise" him on that airframe.

Club rules need to take that kind of thing into account. If in doubt, fly with an instructor. How could two guys who are qualified Pilots not know this when they got in the aircraft?

One of them is about to take a passenger despite being out of 90 days and the other is about to get in (as a passenger) an aircraft with a Pilot who is not allowed to take passengers.

mad_jock

15th Jun 2013, 12:45

How could two guys who are qualified Pilots not know this when they got in the aircraft?

Because to be honest its a pretty common way of doing things.

Which have been going on for years and years. And to be honest this is the first accident I have seen dealing with it.
Sometimes there a few "check pilots" who are not instructors defined in the insurance docs. for doing group checks.

The person demonstrates to that check pilot that they are fit to fly the aircraft obviously not as PIC if outside 90 days.

Then they are insured to fly "solo"

To those outside groups this might seem all a bit weird but its very normal. there must be hundreds of these types of flights happening every year up and down the country. Mainly because of the requirements of insurance firms.

airpolice

15th Jun 2013, 13:15

Jock, I understand that, and I have been a member of a club where "experienced" pilots had delegated authority from the CFI to carry out such "check rides" but only as an observer. The PIC still needs to be current.

As for insurance company rules.... Since the CAA don't make a requirement for differences training between some SSEA aircraft, it makes sense for the new guy moving up an airframe, or back after a long break, to have some familiarity in the presence of a recently experienced (on airframe) Pilot.

I would not be happy to take the controls from the right hand seat to get the feel of a new aircraft unless there was an instructor in the left hand seat, and if there is an instructor onboard, why is he not in the right hand seat?

I hear that it happens all the time, but I have never allowed anyone (except a current pilot) to manipulate the controls when I am PIC. I don't give my passengers a "clutch" as I am not an instructor and the consequences are dire.

If your pal bumps the aircraft, you face two rather unpleasant options. Either say that you bumped it or admit teaching without an instructor rating.

Is there a connection with this thread?

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/504048-advice-please.html

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?

Crash one

15th Jun 2013, 14:01

I agree with what you are saying Jock. But how many of these check rides per group rules are done with "PIC" out of ANO currency?
If the checkee is out of 90 day current it is illegal unless the other guy is a current instructor, regardless of insurance rules saying "Check pilot current on type but not necessarily instructor, shirley?
As for one day late & you are incapable of flying the a/c, bloody stupid, but, the law. I had "instruction" from an ex instructor (year out of date) on my a/c (under the hood stuff). He was not tailwheel qualified either, just a pax with the brain power. If we had bent it I was responsible. I logged the time as P1 (not as instruction), he enjoyed the ride. Simples.
As for giving unqualified pax a "go" I have no issue with that, subject to my assessment of their capacity to let go when I say so. & if they don't & we bore a hole in the ground then it's my hole not his.
Is'nt this common dog savvy? or am I gonna get nailed for that incorrectly positioned apostrophe?

Crash One, it's not difficult, it's badly worded.

The term "preceding 90 days" is wrong. I suspect that anyone prosecuted for this would be able to argue successfully that the intent of the rule makers was that after flying three t/o & landings in the last 90 days, you are good to go with pax.

Even if one of the circuits was this morning and the other 2 were 89 days ago.

So what is wrong with it? 90 days is 90 days. They have to say something in terms of time limit. "About three months" would be good enough for most people except the pedantics. Preceding? well it would be easy to say "I promise to do 3 t&go in the subsequent 90days".

mad_jock

15th Jun 2013, 15:36

Most of the ones I know of the PIC is the checking pilots. The other pilot can only be PIC for insurance after the check.

Another special is instructors don't have the 90 rule while instructing ie they can be out side 90 days on class and still take a student up. They can't however take a 4 seater up on a trial flight with folk in the back.

There are a group of people out there including some in the CAA that believe none licensed pax should never touch the controls.

There is a bigger group including some from the CAA that think its perfectly acceptable and its been going on for years with no safety issues. In fact they believe it shows good airmanship by sorting out pax that feel sick and off loading the PIC to do nav while pax flys S&L. It also allows flight companions who have done the safety course to practise the skills they learnt.

If this is the first prang in 30-40 years of group checking pilots outside 90days it really isn't an issue. I don't think the CAA will be taking them to court unless this silly sods plead guilty.

fin100

15th Jun 2013, 15:54

Do you have to be an owner of an aeroplane to fly it?! In order to take advantage of the joint ownership and commercial exceptions - that is making the flight private. Then the operators of said aircraft must own at least 5% and be registered as such with the CAA.

If you look up G-ARHN its a trustee and I think the point was that as a co-owner you have no way of knowing who else is also a co-owner.

So if said Pilot 2 was not a co-owner then he would have flown HN illegally and presumably uninsured as well - might show motive for wanting to change your story - but if true I'd be surprised if the CAA didn't want to pursue it. Also why is it not illegal instruction as no instructor ticket?

mad_jock

15th Jun 2013, 16:30

Also why is it not illegal instruction as no instructor ticket?

Because there has never been a safety case for it.

Its been happening hundreds of times a year for years with no issues.

Personally I can't see a problem with it. Most experienced PPL's who are down as check pilots on insurance have way way more clue than some 200 hour zero to hero pillock who has just come out of the magneta line borg process.

wb9999

15th Jun 2013, 16:36

Its been happening hundreds of times a year for years with no issues.

Personally I can't see a problem with it. Most experienced PPL's who are down as check pilots on insurance have way way more clue than some 200 hour zero to hero pillock who has just come out of the magneta line borg process.

Something obviously didn't go right on this occasion.

mad_jock

15th Jun 2013, 16:42

yep this one occasion.

But having this magical instructors ticket doesn't cure all.

I have seen tail strikes

Landings where the wheels have left rubber under the tommys wings.

Leaving the runway and cutting the grass with a green prop for the next month.

Hangers hit.

Fuel bowsers hit.

Fences hit.

All with a magical instructor onboard.

And there are enough accidents of a similar nature with 20 hour a week current instructors onboard some of them fatal.

Stopping the practise will have zero affect on the accident stats.

fin100

15th Jun 2013, 17:01

As has been stated many times - it happens all the time - group check pilots - no instructor ticket - checking out lesser mortals
Now there is a problem because the Rookie checkee let the vref drop say from 65-70mph to 40ish
Pilot 2 for some reason forgot what he was doing there and failed to spot said speed decay
Is there really a problem in the wording of the 90 day rule? does anyone really think its confusing?

Don't we all know that if you've not flown 3 takeoff/landings in last 90 days its either an instructor or solo. Or am I missing something here?

Whats worrying here is in the AAIB report its stated that Pilot 1 believed Pilot 2 was commanding. Only when Pilot 2 was informed that this was problematic was the story changed.

What were his last words? "you have control"

Stopping the practise will have zero affect on the accident stats. I totally agree with that! But part of the issue is being legal - or at least not being provably illegal

mad_jock

15th Jun 2013, 17:25

Don't we all know that if you've not flown 3 takeoff/landings in last 90 days its either an instructor or solo. Or am I missing something here?

Its not though its solo manipulator of the controls with no mention of PIC or instructors. And no mention of which seat you do them in either.

I haven't flown in the LHS of a SEP for getting on 10 years and 1000 hours.

My instructors rating is now up. Am I now banned from flying in RHS? Do I need to do a course to learn how to fly in the LHS again?

airpolice

15th Jun 2013, 17:36

Fin100 wrote: takeoff/landings in last 90 days

That's how most of us interpret the rule, but not what it states. We all (I believe) accept that to mean today and the 89 days before today.

The preceding 90 days is up until last night.

That's what needs changed.

Crash One, it's a matter of defining exactly which 90 days that the rule applies to.

fin100

15th Jun 2013, 17:45

Again I may be missing something but which seat you wish to fly from is surely up to you - convention has LH for command or PUT.

Sole manipulator of controls is surely, though not defined, whilst with an instructor, doing it yourself.

I thought the problem with this incident was that Pilot 2 was not an instructor and Pilot 1 had a long expired passenger currency. So whatever way it goes it was an illegal flight. Except if Pilot 2 was P1 and accepts the responsibility for the incident instead of insisting it was the other chaps fault - in which case Pilot 1 was illegally carrying a passenger.
I'm sure there's more going on here than meets the eye - in fact the report has taken many months to come out which would seem to show something happening behind the scenes.

Would be interesting to see how the insurers reacted and if they paid up

mad_jock

15th Jun 2013, 17:58

I am 100% sure of that as well.

The report says at the time of the accident pilot 1 had already completed the 3 TO's and landings. So actually at the time of the crash they were legal. Just there is some discussions about the previous ones.

The fact that Pilot 2 obviously was got at by someone which then made on paper the previous flights illegal. But quite how they managed that if they signed out the aircraft through the techlog I don't know.

I can't see how you can believe you were PIC before and during the flight to then decide afterwards you weren't because someone has had words with you. If you were PIC and the flight was illegal then that's just plain tuff you can't change your mind afterwards.

robin

15th Jun 2013, 19:58

But the first 3 landings couldn't count as he was not PICand could not count the time or hours:=

mad_jock

15th Jun 2013, 20:04

He was sole manipulator of the controls which is all that the ANO requires.

Which is why it won't go to court unless they plead guilty.

And you are correct they can't count the hours.

wb9999

15th Jun 2013, 20:19

They had only completed one landing prior to the accident, so at the time it was illegal.

Edit: sorry, misread the report. Pilot 2 had demonstrated one landing. It does not say how many landing pilot 1 had completed. The accident happened on the final approach, so it could have been the third landing.

fin100

15th Jun 2013, 20:36

Just a thought. I know lots of groups operate a system where to be let loose with the aircraft a check ride is performed if you haven't flown in so many days.

I'm assuming here that if you're out of 90 day currency the check pilot acts as P1 whist you prove your competence because being out of check means you cant take passengers or log any flight time and, therefore, landings

Then if satisfied you get kicked off on your own to re-qualify on the 90 day thing.

This goes unnoticed until an accident occurs and the check pilot thinks - this could be bad for me - I believe I was only a passenger. Although the check pilot probably arranged the flight and knew Pilot 1 was not current etc etc, so something does not smell right here.

And who pays for the flight? If its Pilot 1 and Pilot 2 logs the time as P1 then it ceases to be a private flight

mad_jock

15th Jun 2013, 20:50

I suspect neither pilot was inside the currency for the insurance to be pic.

Its normally 30 or 45 days

Maoraigh1

15th Jun 2013, 21:33

Our Group insurance has nothing about currency to fly - but at renewal they want everyone's hours.

wb9999

15th Jun 2013, 22:36

CAP804 does stipulate you must be a member of the flight crew for the 3 take offs and landings - which in a single pilot certified aircraft means you must be solo or with an instructor. Sole manipulation of the controls is also stated in a later section, but it is very clear you must be a pilot while undertaking them.

With regards to."sole manipulation of the controls", the Air Navigation Order has the following:

Pilot to remain at controls and be secured in seat

93.—(1)*This article applies to any flying machine or glider registered in the United Kingdom other than an EU-OPS aeroplane flying on a commercial air transport flight.

(2)*The commander of an aircraft to which this article applies must cause one pilot to remain at the controls at all times while it is in flight.

AFAIK, the ANO does not prohibit passengers flying the aircraft, but if a pilot must be at the controls at all times then a passenger is not in sole manipulation of the controls to regain currency.

Level Attitude

15th Jun 2013, 23:48

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".

wb9999

16th Jun 2013, 00:17

I'm unable to copy the extract the moment, but take a look at page 184.

mad_jock

16th Jun 2013, 06:20

Lasors is not a legal document and neither for that matter is CAP804.

They are CAA opinion and until tested in court are only guidance.

Lasors was in some ways a wish list for certain people of the CAA and was out rightly ignored by several senior examiners.

As an example the IMC recommended minimums were tested down to the IR mins by quite a few. And there was absolutely nothing the CAA could do if an IMC rated pilot regularly few to IR mins.

So unless your quotes are from the ANO they are pretty much meaningless.

In the old days the CAA used to give written answers. These days they won't. Mainly because there is only one place the law can be decided. There main ploy is to get people to plead guilty and then and only then do they go through the courts. The CAA doesn't have a very good success rate in court and well they know it.

They know fine this practise has been going on for years, they don't like it but there is no safety case to stop it with a legislation change.

As such under the old ANO there was no problem whats so ever doing the 3 as sole manipulator with someone else as PIC who is a none instructor.

How that's changed now part FCL is included in the ANO I don't have a clue.

BEagle

16th Jun 2013, 06:57

As such under the old ANO there was no problem whats so ever doing the 3 as sole manipulator with someone else as PIC who is a none instructor.

Wrong. Ever since the advent of JAR-FCL, it has always been the case that, if out of recency, the 3 take-offs and 3 landings must be flown either as PIC (solo) or Dual (with FI). If Dual, the pilot regaining recency must be sole manipulator for at least 3 take-offs and landings, i.e. he/she cannot count demo or instructional take-offs and landings flown by the instructor.

I reall cannot understand why barrack room lawyers are trying to put any other interpretation on such a pretty straightforward requirement.

24Carrot

16th Jun 2013, 07:28

From CAP804 (Section 4, Part A, page 6):
(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 ... (goes on to PIC at night)

wb9999

16th Jun 2013, 07:50

And that part of CAP804 is an extract of EASA Aircrew Regulation 1178/ 2011, which is EU legislation, for those who dispute quoted section's legality.

englishal

16th Jun 2013, 07:54

We're very good at discussing THE RULES in this country and getting all worked up about other people. Frankly who cares. Regain your currency how you think fit, and let other people regain it how they think fit. If they fly with a buddy for safety, then I really don't give a toss, let them get on with it. If you want to do it exactly as per CAPsdfbwhf or Lasors or some other CAA document, then please feel free to carry on.

Only in the UK can we discuss this for god knows how many posts and still argue about it. It is bad enough talking about the Cirrus parachute then to read pages of this drivel.

PS CAA documents have been known to be wrong.

PPS if you were uncurrent on something like a Christen Eagle, would you want to go up solo, with an experienced Eagle pilot, or that 21 yo FI who flies PA28's every day?! I know which I'd choose.......

wb9999

16th Jun 2013, 08:44

Englishal, that sounds great - in a perfect world. But if you let people ignore one law, how many more do we turn a blind eye to? Give people an inch and they will take a mile and all that.

Before you know it we'd have people flying without licences or insurance or ignoring controlled airspace....

mad_jock

16th Jun 2013, 09:27

There must be hundreds out there that have breached the ANO if that was the case BEagle

In fact what I have quoted to you was the interpretation given at an instructors seminar 4 years into JAR.

CAP804 IS NOT THE REGULATIONS

You need the original document.

Before you know it we'd have people flying without licences or insurance or ignoring controlled airspace....

That did make me smile. Its already here and has been so for years.

flybymike

16th Jun 2013, 09:28

They know fine this practise has been going on for years, they don't like it but there is no safety case to stop it with a legislation change.
And according to the CAA's own safety statistics there never was any safety case for the 90 day rule to have been introduced in the first place.

mad_jock

16th Jun 2013, 09:30

I think my max has been 270 days then taken a 172 for maint solo.

flybymike

16th Jun 2013, 09:34

MJ! How did you not perish and die a horrible death!

mad_jock

16th Jun 2013, 10:12

Its a bloody miracle mate. Even went IMC for the first time in 4 years using my IMC, single crew. Which was the whole point of me going cause nobody else available had an instrument qual. I had checked with the insurance before I left.

30mins DR without a GPS until the ADF sprung into life. Strangely enough it was on the radial I predicted it was going to be on as well and my ETA for the over head was within 2 mins. The planets aligned that day!!

And I did manage to remember FREDA and how to work a carb heat.

And when I got back I still wasn't legal because I only had 2 landings and the pub was open so couldn't be bothered doing a circuit to make it to 3.

wb9999

16th Jun 2013, 10:25

Before you know it we'd have people flying without licences or insurance or ignoring controlled airspace....

That did make me smile. Its already here and has been so for years.

Really? Jeez, those pilots sure are a dangerous breed. It must be like the wild west up in the sky.

mad_jock

16th Jun 2013, 10:38

Aye some of them have been flying decades without ever having a prang.

foxmoth

16th Jun 2013, 11:31

PPS if you were uncurrent on something like a Christen Eagle, would you want to go up solo, with an experienced Eagle pilot, or that 21 yo FI who flies PA28's every day?! I know which I'd choose.......

How about finding an instructor who is an old fart who has been flying for years on multiple types including Pitts, Extras and possibly even the Eagle! Not sure where you are, but certainly in the Southern UK I can point you to numerous instructors who fit the bill.:hmm:

steve1234

16th Jun 2013, 12:13

Much as people enjoy arguing about the rules or knocking flying instructors this is about a system that’s meant to keep people safe but instead tolerates people who set themselves up as pseudo flying instructors with no training, no competency assessment or formal regulation. In this case organizing a check ride in a plane they weren’t legally entitled to fly that got out of control on final approach shot across a major road narrowly missing people, crashed into trees severely injuring the hapless pilot suckered into the check ride who then got the blame.

mad_jock

16th Jun 2013, 12:17

get real the Check pilot knew fine what they were doing.

Its not the fresh clueless PPL who will have set this up it will be the experienced members of the group who will have advised that its fine and what they normally do.

Then when something happened they have dumped the pilot in the poo and washed their hands and hope that they are insured. Which they more than likely aren't if the check pilot was outside 45 days.

steve1234

16th Jun 2013, 12:31

Mad Jock you might have got the wrong end of the stick. I agree with you. The 'hapless pilot' was the one being checked, the one doing the checks knew the score.

mad_jock

16th Jun 2013, 12:37

I did sorry its the poor PPL that's been left to deal with this one.

Personally if I was him I would just stick to the line he wasn't PIC and that the other guy was. By the sounds of it he changed his story post event so they will be on plums as long as the checkee sticks to their guns.

airpolice

16th Jun 2013, 13:03

Steve1234 Wrote:

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?

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?

Perhaps the AAIB need to do the manning up? A pretty pointless report. I heard the CAA wrote to that flying group saying the check pilot wasn't even legally entitled to fly the plane which if true raises all sorts of questions.............but that's not mentioned in the AAIB report.

I think that Steve knows more about this situation than anyone else on here. In the position of the guy being checked out, I'd be looking for some "evidence" of being told to change details. Even an email would do.

Why did this (out of 90 day currency) guy get into a plane with someone other than an instructor?

I've often got into a plane with a QFI without checking his logbook to see if he has the required 3 in 90 just as I get in a car without asking to see proof of Licence & Insurance from the driver. We all have a right to expect a certain standard from Instructors.

The guy doing the checking "might" have been legal, the checkee has limited ways of knowing, but what he definitely did (or should) know, is that he himself could not be PIC. Since the purpose of the flight was to get him his 3 in 90 then the checker would have known that the checkee can't be PIC so therefore the checker must be.

Changing his story after the event is never going to be good for the guy being checked out, who up until that point had done nothing wrong. If he did in fact change his report, then he deserves all that he gets for doing so.

This whole debate has been good for flying clubs everywhere. It may well stamp out the dangerous practice of non instructors doing check rides.

flybymike

16th Jun 2013, 14:09

I've often got into a plane with a QFI without checking his logbook to see if he has the required 3 in 90 just as I get in a car without asking to see proof of Licence & Insurance from the driver. We all have a right to expect a certain standard from Instructors.
It has been said before on this forum by several people that the instructor need not necessarily be current on landings himself.

Crash one

16th Jun 2013, 14:37

if you were uncurrent on something like a Christen Eagle, would you want to go up solo, with an experienced Eagle pilot, or that 21 yo FI who flies PA28's every day?! I know which I'd choose.......

That would depend on whether I was ANO current on SEP or not first.
If I were not 90 day current I would do 3to & lands with the 21yo in his PA28 first, then do as long as required in the Christen Eagle with the experienced pilot.
If it were a case of picking the most experienced on type things would be easier/different. This is not the case here. YOU CANNOT FLY WITH A PASSENGER AFTER 90 DAYS. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW EXPERIENCED THE PASSENGER IS, IF THEY ARE NOT AN INSTRUCTOR THEY ARE A PASSENGER. How difficult is it???:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:Obviously if you find an old fart INSTRUCTOR on type then problem solved.

fin100

16th Jun 2013, 15:34

In this case organizing a check ride in a plane they weren’t legally entitled to fly that got out of control on final approach shot across a major road narrowly missing people, crashed into trees severely injuring the hapless pilot suckered into the check ride who then got the blame. I think steve1234 has hit the nail on the head here!

Pilot 1 believed he was legally being checked out by Pilot 2 who claimed he was P1 until 3 take offs and landings. Then after the accident Pilot 2 thinks - could be in trouble here so - I was only a passenger

The Groups rules prove the position of Pilot 2

If I go flying with a mate and take the RH seat that does not make the occupier of the LH seat P1.
The purpose of this flight was I thought a check ride NOT to regain 90 currency which could be done solo after. The AAIB stated that they went off to do air work or something similar. The reason for the flight is pretty clear.

And this syndicate is not new to incidents - 4 losses in 6 years - simple good search - Popham Flying Group

Pittsextra

16th Jun 2013, 15:46

Whats pretty embarrassing about this is that pilot 1, being so new to it all, picks up such bad airmanship so early on in his flying!

Almost as embarrassing as those who jump up and down suggesting the rules are a bit vague.

Being casual about all these might be possible for decades with no consequence but you just look a mug when it ends in a heap and everyone scrabbles to justify things.

Remember that shunt at Reno? The guy was 10k hours, warbird experience coming out of his ears, a living legend. Until his fudged paperwork and casual attitude wiped out a bunch of people that probably didn't expect the consequences of watching an air race could be so harsh.

Didn't look so smart then.

Mike Cross

16th Jun 2013, 16:37

OK it's starting to make sense.

The UK implemented the Regulation on 8 April 2012. Prior to that the ANO applied.

After that date the requirements of FCL 060 apply, providing you have a part FCL license. If like me you have a CAA PPL the wording in the ANO still applies.

FCL 060 does not explicitly state that the person doing the landings and take-offs has to be a crew member however it's fairly clear from the AMC and GM that this is the intent as they state that an instructor does not count as a passenger, and that if the flight is with an instructor for the purpose of regaining 90 day currency no passengers may be carried.

Anyone know if the regulation has also had the effect of stopping passengers being carried during a lesson, i.e. one stude in the front with the instructor and another in the back for one leg of a cross country swapping round for the return trip?

If not it would be a bit daft that if there's an instructor in the RHS it's OK for one stude to sit in back as a passenger while another stude landed it but not OK if the guy in the LHS already had a license but was out of 90 day currency.

Ho hum......

Silvaire1

16th Jun 2013, 16:47

The problem I have with flying with currently qualified instructors is that, more often than not, they don't know much compared with others I fly with. I'll fly with them when its legally necessary, but I'd much rather fly and learn (as I often do) with a guy who has thousands of hours in everything from flying boats to Phantoms to L-1011s, including several thousand hours of light aircraft instructor and T-28 instructor pilot experience, much of which was gained before the average active instructor was born.

That guy is one of perhaps five such guys who I could ask to fly with me on a given day, although one of them did just re-did his long inactive instructor rating on a sort of lark. I think when he retires from AA he'd like to make money as an examiner, and you have to work your way into that deal one step at a time.

I just like to learn, not act out theatre.

Pittsextra

16th Jun 2013, 18:30

So now we are moving from suggesting that the rules don't apply to people who think they know better to down grading FI's.

Before too long someone will moan about the cost of a medical being £100 more than it used to be, IMC and EASA, whilst being a 10 hour a year pilot...

mad_jock

16th Jun 2013, 18:35

If you have done a FIC and become un restricted your quite within your right to say it how it is about FI's

The current system isn't a touch on the old pre JAR one.

And it a crying shame the British Gliding Associations instructor system is way way more professional and standardised than the fixed wing one under the oversight of the CAA.

Talkdownman

16th Jun 2013, 19:26

This whole debate has been good for flying clubs everywhere. It may well stamp out the dangerous practice of non instructors doing check rides
OK, then, a scenario:

A PPL holder wants to join a non-equity SEP group. The SEP owner requires the PPL holder to be subject to a 'check flight'. The PPL is SEP qualified and current within 90 days.

Q. What qualifications and experience does the checker need, and what qualifications and experience do you think the checker should have?

Pittsextra

16th Jun 2013, 20:15

Madjock - in the end someone has to establish some framework to work with and let's be honest when people try and make an issue over 90 days, 3 take offs and landings and the option of a FI what hope?

In the context of this thread I'm sure a FI born from any system might have made a better fist of it than the two...as it turns out "victims".

Just because a flying group might find doing the right thing hard doesn't mean they should do as they please.

Shunter

16th Jun 2013, 20:38

It has been said before on this forum by several people that the instructor need not necessarily be current on landings himself

Quite, and I've even clarified that with the CAA. If I am not current under the 90 day rule, I cannot take my Mrs up flying as she is a passenger. However I could take another group member up flying for a currency check as they are not a passenger; I am P1 and they are a licensed pilot logging PUT. Perverse you might say, but they be the rules and I didn't write them.

englishal

16th Jun 2013, 20:45

Here is a daft situation we experienced once...and I digress slightly, but it is related to checkouts....

We bought a new complex type, so the insurance required a flight with a qualified flight instructor. A Class Rating Instructor is a qualified flight instructor by definition, so despite little or no experience on type, we were "checked out" by a friendly CRI (actually we figured out how to fly the thing together by reading the POH).

Now my other friend is an FAA CFII, and we wanted to let him fly the aeroplane, which is on the N reg. So he was checked out by the CRI. We also are friends of the CRI, and we wanted to have the ability to lend him the aeroplane if he ever wanted to borrow it. Except he wasn't allowed to fly it solo until he was checked out by a Qualified Flight Instructor. As my CFII friend is a QFI by definition, and was checked out on type (by the CRI), he conducted the checkout of the CRI (who had checked him and us out). Then the insurance required my co-owner (who has less high performance experience) to fly 10 hrs dual with me or an FI as safety pilot. Now the insurance was satisfied!

Yes the 90 day rule is very easy to understand, I just wonder how sometimes it is not in the best interest of flight safety. Doesn't bother me though as I have 2 FI buddies :D

BEagle

16th Jun 2013, 20:52

...Except he wasn't allowed to fly it solo until he was checked out by a Qualified Flight Instructor. As my CFII friend is a QFI by definition...

I know that military instructors are of a far higher calibre than minimum time hours building people-tube wannabees, but why on earth would an insurer require that your pilots were checked out by a QFI?

'QFI' is not a civilian qualification.

flybymike

16th Jun 2013, 21:49

He is showing his age Beagle. Pre JAR even we civvies had QFIs and AFIs. You must remember....

foxmoth

16th Jun 2013, 22:02

a scenario:

A PPL holder wants to join a non-equity SEP group. The SEP owner requires the PPL holder to be subject to a 'check flight'. The PPL is SEP qualified and current within 90 days.

Q. What qualifications and experience does the checker need, and what qualifications and experience do you think the checker should have?

Legally the guy does not need a check flight, what you are doing here is satisfying an insurance requirement and they are the ones who need to stipulate what qualifications and experience the checker needs, remember, we are talking legalities here, not what is necessarily sensible - if I was the owner and the insurance had not laid this down I would want to know the experience of the new member and who I had check him out might vary depending on this.

'QFI' is not a civilian qualification. It might not be a laid down qualification or title, but EA said "by definition" and ANY Instructor who has done the course IS a Qualified Flying Instructor "by definition", they are Flying instructors and they are Qualified to be so - I cannot understand why people get so steamed up about this. :rolleyes:

Torque Tonight

16th Jun 2013, 23:29

It is quite reasonable to for an aircraft owner to fly with a potential new group member and 'check him out' to guage his competence. This is not instruction merely observation, and is a sensible precaution before letting someone loose with your pride and joy. Regardless of being properly licensed, rated, current etc if I didn't have faith in someone's ability, they would not be flying my aeroplane.

Regarding the ongoing debate here, what the matter really boils down to is: can a (non instructor) pilot legally allow a passenger to handle the controls?

For those that continue to insist that the regulations are perfectly clear, we now have nearly 140 posts on this thread debating the question, at least three such threads this year, many more in previous years, and an accident report where the AAIB has to seek clarifcation. Regardless of which side of the question you come down on, I struggle to understand those who boldly state 'there is no doubt'. My opening comment on this subject was that the relevent regulations should be rewritten to eliminate the possibility of ambiguity - throwing insinuations about does not address that at all.

Mariner9

17th Jun 2013, 02:04

A question has occurred to me from reading this thread - I fly both EASA and Annex II aircraft, and until now, have assumed my 90 day currency is OK if I've done my 3 T/O and landings in either aircraft, or a combination.

But is that correct? Hours on Annex II don't count towards EASA, so do T/O and landings? Will I have to stay 90 day current on each type? I think I'll henceforth work on the case I need 90 day currency on each type unless someone can tell me it's not required.

mad_jock

17th Jun 2013, 04:55

I think we are also as well forgetting how difficult some schools make it for groups.

I have in the past while being in a club waiting for someone else to turn up watched what can only be called extortion being committed and being awkward for the sake of it. So much so I went and did the checkout in a group PA28 myself for free.

I also used to have groups turn up at my school just to get the hour with an instructor done because it was so much hassel getting it done at the local school. Even had snotty phone calls afterwards because the boss had signed there class ratings off for a bottle of whisky. Apparently if the group had used the local school in there aircraft the school wanted 40 quid per hour for the instructor and 70 quid each for the class renewal. Where as with us three of them got there hour and a trip up to Wick and Orkney and I was 15 quid an hour and they bought me lunch.

The fact is that if schools weren't such gits and the instructors made flights fun you never get this issue with people trying to avoid going anywhere near them.

BEagle

17th Jun 2013, 06:19

Fair enough to charge the going rate for flight instruction for a revalidation training flight, but to charge anything at all for a simple signature is utterly outrageous (unless, of course, a Proficiency Check had been required).

There are reports of some chiselling gits charging £30 just to sign an English Language assessment....

Hours on Annex II don't count towards EASA... They do if they're SEP hours, but Microlight hours cannot be used towards SEP revalidation (apart from NPPL holders with SSEA and Microlight Class Ratings). However, FCL.002 are considering a widely-supported IAOPA recommendation to allow flight time in 3-axis Microlights to count towards SEP revalidation. The NPA is expected in Q4 2013.

mad_jock

17th Jun 2013, 07:23

The bottle of whisky was a present for getting everything sorted out with minimal hassle.

They had asked me up north about getting their revalidation signed. I think my comment was "a bottle of whisky and he will pretty much sign anything and don't bother getting him decent stuff either quantity over quality"

And it wasn't the going rate even if you included employers NI it was well in excess of an hour for an instructor charged for dual with aircraft hire almost double. For the three of them they were looking at 330 quid and the whole group over a grand every two years. The rest of them came up as well but after I left preferred to spend the money positioning than give it to the school. By the time they had payed for food etc it was more but the begrudged paying it to the school.

I also found that if you made the sessions with an instructor fun and value for money the punters would ask for an hour when you were free even when they didn't need it be they group or self hire.

wb9999

17th Jun 2013, 07:25

Regarding the ongoing debate here, what the matter really boils down to is: can a (non instructor) pilot legally allow a passenger to handle the controls?

For those that continue to insist that the regulations are perfectly clear, we now have nearly 140 posts on this thread debating the question, at least three such threads this year, many more in previous years, and an accident report where the AAIB has to seek clarifcation. Regardless of which side of the question you come down on, I struggle to understand those who boldly state 'there is no doubt'. My opening comment on this subject was that the relevent regulations should be rewritten to eliminate the possibility of ambiguity - throwing insinuations about does not address that at all.

Torque Tonight, I don't think the question of can a passenger handle the controls is the issue on this thread (as that is a thread of its own). It's the currency requirements and who can a pilot fly with for the 3 take-offs and landings to regain currency.

CAP804 explains currency requirements. While CAP804 is not law, the part of CAP804 that states the requirements is taken from EU legislation, which is law across all EU member states. And that is why it is so clear cut. The section of CAP804 that explains the currency requirements cannot be clearer. The problem with the misunderstanding of the currency requirements is because the wording changed in April 2012, but a lot of pilots (most likely all) did not know that and are relying on "sole manipulator of the controls" - which is no longer relevant.

I agree that the regulations are a mess. A pilot has to know the ANO, CAP804, EU legislation, Rules of the Air etc. All of this will amount to thousands of pages of legal jargon, which requires a lawyer to understand. It changes frequently, without any notification to flight crew. If you go flying tomorrow, different parts of your flight will be regulated by different laws or regulations, and you have to be aware of the up-to-date law. How many of us read, understand and follow every single regulation as they are introduced?

BTW the Air Law exam still mentions JAR and ANO, with no reference to EASA and the EU legislation that overrides the ANO. What a great example the CAA are setting!

24Carrot

17th Jun 2013, 09:02

Links to some of the above:

EASA - Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material (http://www.easa.europa.eu/agency-measures/acceptable-means-of-compliance-and-guidance-material.php#Part-FCL)

look at "Part FCL", then "Annex to decision 2011/016/R"

Looking inside that tells you it is:
"Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011"

Googling 1178/2011, (ignoring its helpful division sum),

gives an EASA index page:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/regulations/regulations-structure.php

Where you can find it, and its amendment, under "Aircrew".

I did the IR Air law exam a couple of years back, and there was no mention of EASA in any of that either, not even where to look. I assume the links above are "official", but all I did was google. Of course, there is also CAP804 for the UK.

Pittsextra

17th Jun 2013, 09:52

So you are pilot with around 80 hours total time, of which 8 are on the type you are about to fly. You have done zero hours in the last 90 days. Clearly you are reasonably new to all this.

At what point would it be so completely stupid to call the instructor you did your PPL with or even the CAA for guidance??

robin

17th Jun 2013, 10:00

I'd guess pilot 1 in this case would have consulted the group leader in the first instance.

After all, how many of us, once we have our own toy or share o'plane ever think of speaking to a flying school. We tend to rely on the views of more experienced pilots we fly with.

It's been said before, but there is a general view that it is a sin to have to fly with an instructor. Look at how many of us will leave it very late to pile in the 12 hours for revalidation, rather than taking the cheaper route of an LST.

mad_jock

17th Jun 2013, 10:20

Calling the CAA these days is pretty much stupid all of the time.

1. It cost a fortune
2. They just tell you to read CAP804 even if you tell them its not in it.
3.They won't give written answer so any reply is useless.

And if you decide to email the day you have just done your 3 circuits in all likely hood you will be out on the 90 days before you get a reply.

As for the instructor bit I suspect the group will be very anti having anything to do with the schools so will be telling the new member what to do. And as they are so experienced peer pressure will keep low hour's pilot away from previous instructors.

Then again who is to say the instructor is any better informed than anyone else about the changes with EASA

Pittsextra

17th Jun 2013, 11:03

So the CAA are rubbish and so is EASA... so are the rules....so are instructors....

Bit of pattern forming.

So our new pilot is looking to do some flying (all be it not too much as he's pinged the 90 day rule) and looks to join a group. One with a few accidents (or so it would seem). How do you view the group and the experience therein?

mad_jock

17th Jun 2013, 11:23

Not all instructors are rubbish.

Just the hour building idiots that have been trained to fly big jets and not much else. You only really have a clue what your doing at about 700-800 hours and some never get it. In fact post instructing full time and moving onto bigger stuff is when certain things click into place as well as the priority's while flying.

Are you an instructor yourself?

The group more than likely has quite a bit of experience on paper but the senior members are more than likely quite set in there ways and its a bit of an ego trip for them with their inexperienced little followers hanging on every word they say. I don't have a clue about this group or the airfield but I should imagine that there will have been on going feuds between the senior members and various CFI's of the local schools and other local users from doing things their own way for years.

They more than likely talk a good flight in the bar but in practise they struggle to practise what they preach.

This is what the hour with an instructor was meant to solve but failed miserably.