Legal to Carry Passengers.....??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: South East
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal to Carry Passengers.....??
Can anyone here shed light on the debate in the private flying forum? You cannot act as PIC of a passenger-carrying aircraft if you haven't done three landings in the last 90 days.
So you somehow have to chalk up those landings, either as a solo pilot (PIC, but not carrying passengers) or in a position where you are not PIC, but you are the sole manipulator of the controls. This can be done with an instructor (he is PIC, you are PU/T) but, indeed, I can't find any legal reason why this cannot be with another current PPL (he is PIC, you are PAX but manipulating the controls). The assumption is that the ANO takes precedence over any requirement in Lasors. What is legal?
ANO States:
SCHEDULE 7
PART A
Flight crew licences
SECTION 1
United Kingdom Licences
SUB-SECTION 1
Aeroplane pilots
Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes)
Minimum age – 17 years
No maximum period of validity
Privileges:
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the holder of a Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes) is entitled to fly
as pilot in command or co-pilot of an aeroplane of any of the types or classes specified or otherwise
falling within an aircraft rating included in the licence.
(2) The holder may not—
[...]
(g) fly as pilot in command of such an aeroplane carrying passengers unless—
(i) within the preceding 90 days the holder has made at least three take-offs and three
landings as the sole manipulator of the controls of an aeroplane of the same type or
class; and
(ii) if such a flight is to be carried out at night and the licence does not include an
instrument rating (aeroplane), at least one of those take-offs and landings has been at
night.
Lasors states:
Carriage of Passengers
Pilots not operating in accordance with JAR-OPS
or EU-OPS’ are required to meet recent experience
criteria to carry passengers. A pilot shall not operate an
aeroplane or helicopter carrying passengers as pilot-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 thisrequirement.
So you somehow have to chalk up those landings, either as a solo pilot (PIC, but not carrying passengers) or in a position where you are not PIC, but you are the sole manipulator of the controls. This can be done with an instructor (he is PIC, you are PU/T) but, indeed, I can't find any legal reason why this cannot be with another current PPL (he is PIC, you are PAX but manipulating the controls). The assumption is that the ANO takes precedence over any requirement in Lasors. What is legal?
ANO States:
SCHEDULE 7
PART A
Flight crew licences
SECTION 1
United Kingdom Licences
SUB-SECTION 1
Aeroplane pilots
Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes)
Minimum age – 17 years
No maximum period of validity
Privileges:
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the holder of a Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes) is entitled to fly
as pilot in command or co-pilot of an aeroplane of any of the types or classes specified or otherwise
falling within an aircraft rating included in the licence.
(2) The holder may not—
[...]
(g) fly as pilot in command of such an aeroplane carrying passengers unless—
(i) within the preceding 90 days the holder has made at least three take-offs and three
landings as the sole manipulator of the controls of an aeroplane of the same type or
class; and
(ii) if such a flight is to be carried out at night and the licence does not include an
instrument rating (aeroplane), at least one of those take-offs and landings has been at
night.
Lasors states:
Carriage of Passengers
Pilots not operating in accordance with JAR-OPS
or EU-OPS’ are required to meet recent experience
criteria to carry passengers. A pilot shall not operate an
aeroplane or helicopter carrying passengers as pilot-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 thisrequirement.
You cannot act as PIC of a passenger-carrying aircraft
If you are flying a single pilot aeroplane, another PPL is a passenger unless he holds an instructor/examiner qualification and is acting as the air craft commander and you are manipulating the controls as a pilot under training.
I can't find any legal reason why this cannot be with another current PPL (he is PIC, you are PAX but manipulating the controls).
unless that pilot has carried out at least three take-offs and three landings as pilot flying (sole manipulator of the controls)
‘Passenger’ means a person other than a member of the crew;
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: On the ground too often
Age: 49
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you somehow have to chalk up those landings, either as a solo pilot (PIC, but not carrying passengers) or in a position where you are not PIC, but you are the sole manipulator of the controls. This can be done with an instructor (he is PIC, you are PU/T) but, indeed, I can't find any legal reason why this cannot be with another current PPL (he is PIC, you are PAX but manipulating the controls).
But why solo? Would this not also be satisfied if I had made the 3 landings in the 90 previous days carrying passengers (assuming I was current at that time)? I think the solo rule applies only if I lose the currency and want to regain it - since I cannot take passengers up with me how otherwise can I make the landings?
I think the logic might be that if you are flying a small aircraft intended for single pilot operation there can be one person operating the controls at a time. If you are a PAX you cannot manipulate controls. How would you even put it down in your logbook (PIC? P/UT? SIC?).
If you manipulate the controls I guess you become the PIC, and the other person becomes a PAX, which you are not legally allowed to carry (just because he's got a PPL doesn't mean he's not a PAX ;-) Can't have two PICs at the same time ;-) Of course if you fly something like e.g. an An-2 (which requires 2 crew) on your PPL you can solely manipulate the controls whilst not being the PIC - you can be SIC ;-)
I'm trying to find a reference which states when you can log PIC, P/UT, SIC time but haven't been able to.
Golf-Sierra
PS. By the time I managed to type this response (got distracted a bit by a phone call) a few other people posted more or less the same answer ;-) Has improved my confidence for when I need to take the air law exam ;-)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AN2 does not require 2 crew. It may have been operated as a multi crew aircraft in service but it is operated in civilian life as a single pilot aircraft. You also can't log SIC in it under JAA rules.
But that is a digression. When you are out of the 90 day currency you are not deemed current enough to carry a passenger. You have the opportunity to carry out the required landings solo to regain currency to make it easier for you. If you get it wrong you just take yourself out not a passenger.
if you do not feel capable of self renewing then you seek Instruction.
It can't be made much simpler.......
But that is a digression. When you are out of the 90 day currency you are not deemed current enough to carry a passenger. You have the opportunity to carry out the required landings solo to regain currency to make it easier for you. If you get it wrong you just take yourself out not a passenger.
if you do not feel capable of self renewing then you seek Instruction.
It can't be made much simpler.......
You can't have a crew of two in an aircraft certified for single crew operation.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, one might question why an instructor exceeded 90 days without conducting at least 3 take offs and landings!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't have said a student is a member of the flight crew, which means s/he can only be called a passenger in the context of 90-day currency. Would you really grant instructional privileges to a pilot who is legally un-current?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Agion Oros
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the 90 day rule is a classic example of a rule, like many which wasn't thought out. As to if anyone should be flying P1 after 90 days, I have known people who have passed FI renewals and IR renewals without having flown any type of aircraft in the previous twelve months, which means it is sometimes is possible remain competant. What simplistic rules like the 90 day rule doesn't take into account is the other factors such as total experience, and what other classes are being flown during the previous 90 days, etc.. I think the rule was directed at PPL's not flying within flying clubs, as most flying clubs prior to the 90 day rule, had sensible rules on recency.
The other question I have on the 90 day rule, what is the a definition of what constitutes three take off and landings, does it require a circuits or a departure? Or could you by prior arrangement with ATC on a very long runway do a takeoff, two touch and goes, and a land?
The other question I have on the 90 day rule, what is the a definition of what constitutes three take off and landings, does it require a circuits or a departure? Or could you by prior arrangement with ATC on a very long runway do a takeoff, two touch and goes, and a land?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the rule was directed at PPL's not flying within flying clubs, as most flying clubs prior to the 90 day rule, had sensible rules on recency.
It is not rocket science!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hadn't flown a SEP in 3 years when I renewed my class rating which I did I might add sitting in the right hand seat.
I was actually quite suprised how much of it was still programmed in and was almost automatic. But then again I have 900 hours in SEP in one year when I was a full time instructor to set me up for long periods not flying them.
Also switching between turbine types I can go 12months -18 months between flying different types and jump in and do an LPC (which is a IR test) and pass it with minimal debrief points.
Some pilots can, some can't, 90days is enough to catch the idiots who can't but don't know they can't , but long enough that it doesn't get silly and a pain in the bum for everyone. And it is sensible to allow folk to get current solo.
Personally i think they should change it to allow license holders (and that means pilots that are not qualified on class/type) to be onboard because they wil know the risk they are taking if outside 90days. Clueless pax nope leave them on the ground.
I was actually quite suprised how much of it was still programmed in and was almost automatic. But then again I have 900 hours in SEP in one year when I was a full time instructor to set me up for long periods not flying them.
Also switching between turbine types I can go 12months -18 months between flying different types and jump in and do an LPC (which is a IR test) and pass it with minimal debrief points.
Some pilots can, some can't, 90days is enough to catch the idiots who can't but don't know they can't , but long enough that it doesn't get silly and a pain in the bum for everyone. And it is sensible to allow folk to get current solo.
Personally i think they should change it to allow license holders (and that means pilots that are not qualified on class/type) to be onboard because they wil know the risk they are taking if outside 90days. Clueless pax nope leave them on the ground.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if an instructor hasn't flown for the 90 days, can he/she then fly as pilot in command (P1) with another person as long as they are a student pilot (PUT)?
FFF
------------
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm glad you think a 15-minute flight isn't a problem.
As I said, earlier this week I was in a position where I was instructing (examining, actually) on an SEP, out of 90-day currency. My student - who, remember, was a paying customer of my company - was actually booked in for a different date, but requested to change the date of his flight to fit in with the forecast weather, so the flight happened at short notice, and I was the only suitably qualified examiner available to carry out the flight at short notice.
I work in an environment where I have to consider the following requirements:
- It takes 10 minutes to taxy from my parking to the holding point (at a sensible taxy speed)
- ATC delays can often mean anything up to 15 minutes, sometimes more, at the holding point before getting airborne
- ATC delays in the air can often mean 10 minutes per circuit spent orbiting
- On a busy day, my spare time is short enough that I'll eat my lunch whilst walking between the office and the ramp because it's the only chance I get. (It's either that, or cut down the length of my briefs/debriefs, which I'm not prepared to do. And I'm also not prepared to skip lunch!!!)
- I'm not prepared to pay for a currency flight myself - the amount it would cost me far exceeds the amount of money I'd loose by turning the flight down
- I wouldn't expect my boss to pay for anything that isn't required (whether by law, or in the interests of safety) - she has a business to run and can't afford to throw money away like that.
If I had taken the view that getting current was "not a big deal", the flight would not have gone ahead, my school's customer would not have been a happy customer, and the school would have potentially lost money.
The idea that a 15-minute flight is not a big deal might be very true for a PPL who has spare money to burn and is happy to burn that money and turn it into logbook hours, but the question has been posted in a forum for instructors, and it simply doesn't hold true when trying to run a business such as a flying school. You have to know what is legally allowed and what is not. When something is required, you make the time to do it. When it's not required, you don't.
Having said that, of course, safety is always the overriding factor, and if there is any reason to think that, in the specific circumstances, a currency flight would be a benefit, then yes of course you must do so.
FFF
-------------
As I said, earlier this week I was in a position where I was instructing (examining, actually) on an SEP, out of 90-day currency. My student - who, remember, was a paying customer of my company - was actually booked in for a different date, but requested to change the date of his flight to fit in with the forecast weather, so the flight happened at short notice, and I was the only suitably qualified examiner available to carry out the flight at short notice.
I work in an environment where I have to consider the following requirements:
- It takes 10 minutes to taxy from my parking to the holding point (at a sensible taxy speed)
- ATC delays can often mean anything up to 15 minutes, sometimes more, at the holding point before getting airborne
- ATC delays in the air can often mean 10 minutes per circuit spent orbiting
- On a busy day, my spare time is short enough that I'll eat my lunch whilst walking between the office and the ramp because it's the only chance I get. (It's either that, or cut down the length of my briefs/debriefs, which I'm not prepared to do. And I'm also not prepared to skip lunch!!!)
- I'm not prepared to pay for a currency flight myself - the amount it would cost me far exceeds the amount of money I'd loose by turning the flight down
- I wouldn't expect my boss to pay for anything that isn't required (whether by law, or in the interests of safety) - she has a business to run and can't afford to throw money away like that.
If I had taken the view that getting current was "not a big deal", the flight would not have gone ahead, my school's customer would not have been a happy customer, and the school would have potentially lost money.
The idea that a 15-minute flight is not a big deal might be very true for a PPL who has spare money to burn and is happy to burn that money and turn it into logbook hours, but the question has been posted in a forum for instructors, and it simply doesn't hold true when trying to run a business such as a flying school. You have to know what is legally allowed and what is not. When something is required, you make the time to do it. When it's not required, you don't.
Having said that, of course, safety is always the overriding factor, and if there is any reason to think that, in the specific circumstances, a currency flight would be a benefit, then yes of course you must do so.
FFF
-------------