Desert Strip Basher

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

Beethoven

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

Beet

mad_jock

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

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

IO540

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

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

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

I hope I got all that right

mad_jock

I don't think he was on about night

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

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

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

S-Works

Nearly.

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

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

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

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

blagger

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

IO540

That will teach me to read the question

G-BHZO

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

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

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

Gertrude the Wombat

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

peter272

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

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

G-BHZO

Peter,

A fair point and one that was expected...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

flybymike

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

robin

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

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

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

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

He is now an ex-syndicate partner.

Fuji Abound

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

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

flybymike

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

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

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

Fuji Abound

Flybymike

Sorry, it wasnt IO, but peter272.

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

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

beany

Fuji - exactly.

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

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

B

IO540

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

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

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

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

peter272

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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