90 Day Rule

[New Bloke]

Look I'm sorry, I'm sure this has been mentioned before but search doesn't seem to work and I ignored this subject before as I never intended to miss the 90 day rule.
Along came A/Ds, engine rebuild, no currency on other types and suddenly....well I only have 2 landings in the last 90 days.

I had intended to bang a couple of hours circuits in on Sunday until I am ahead of the aeroplane again, and another pilot in our group fancies doing the same.

Question. Can we go together and ease each others workload, or legally, would I have to do one circuit first (to get my 3 T/O and landings in) and then take the other bloke?

[Mister Gash]

I’m in the same situation myself. To my knowledge — unless the other person is a QFI — you can’t go flying with him unless HE is P1 and is compliant with the 90-day rule (in which case, any T/Os and LDGS are bu$$er all use to you as far as said rule is concerned). Or am I wrong?

Gash

Edited for stupidity

[ 28 September 2001: Message edited by: Mister Gash ]

[Flyswift]

Click here.... some answers may help FAQ's

[ 28 September 2001: Message edited by: Flyswift ]

[RW05]

Others may disagree but the answer in the FAQ may not be totally correct, in that it infers that the 3 take offs and landings may be done as training ie PUT. Certainly where I fly this isn't acceptable. If you can get an instructor to sign it as P1/S then fine, otherwise you have to get up there all on your own.

[Fujitsu]

Can't really see why it wouldn't be acceptable to do the three landings with an instructor, even if they are logged as PUT. In fact it would seem very silly not to allow it. Where do you fly?

[Fuji Abound]

I asked FCL at the CAA the exact same question. This was essentially their answer. If you have exceeded the 90 day rule, and want to log the flight with anyone else aboard, the only way you can do so is with an FI. You can however fly with another Group member who qualifies under the 90 day rule and who gives you permission to manipulate the controls. The other group member of course logs the flight P1 and is in command. You however regain your Group currency and confidence. Thereafter you go and fly the required 3 departures and landings.

Seems pretty silly to me, and doesn't in my opinion promote safety one bit, as the temptation is to go and do the solo bit after a 90 day lay off without the support of another current pilot.

The CAA are worried that the other current pilot might end up being a low timer coerced into the flight, and that is why you should find an instructor. I personally doubt that so far as groups are concerned, and wonder what evidence exists. I would be interested in the opinion of others.

[carbheatcold]

Personally I always use a club instructor even if I have not exceeded the 90 day rule. Their input can be invaluable and it gives me the chance to try some of the more non standard short field, soft field, flapless etc t/o's and landings. They can also advise on any bad habits particularly if you have remained 'current' for several months.

[SteveR]

Foxy Black:

If you can get an instructor to sign it as P1/S then fine, otherwise you have to get up there all on your own.

Flying with an instructor cannot be logged as P1/s. P1/s requires an examiner and is only for examination flights undertaken for gaining a licence or rating.

An old chestnut.

Steve R

[foxmoth]

Foxy B
Legally there is no requirement for the 3 landings to be P1, just as 'sole manipulator of the controls'.

[The Flying I]

Steve R - agreeing with you, if you look further down that higherplane FAQ site at the end of #24 (on false p2 logging) there's a believeable opinion about WHY there is so much false p1/s logging (Instructor hours building!)

[Ex Oggie]

QUOTE: Flying with an instructor cannot be logged as P1/s. P1/s requires an examiner and is only for examination flights undertaken for gaining a licence or rating.


I have always understood that P1S (SPIC) can be logged on any check flight where the PIC is satisfied that the SPIC is competant on type, whether they be FI/Examiner/CPL/PPL or whatever. For instance a tailwheel conversion by a PPL for a PPL (prior to the Differences intro)
Thats certainly the rules I have been used to, for the last 15-20 years of civil flying.
Have the rules been modified with the intro of JAA?

Cheers

[ 30 September 2001: Message edited by: Ex Oggie ]

[The Flying I]

ex-oggie - But as that site says - did you start logging P1/s because you were told to
by someone, or because you read the CAP rules?

The only real effect from JAR (which calls it something like 'picus') is that the log book entries are being examined more closely as pilots claim 12 hours. It's all "hit the fan" a bit and rule book began to have dust blown off them because PPLs were found within
syndicates double-claiming hours to both get 12 using the same flights saying one was checking the other.

I think there is an easy way round it for the instructor flights and 90 days rules, which is what this posting is all about:
You can log training (pu/t) for any training for the grant, renewal, or revalidation of a rating. So when you go to an instructor to get 3 take offs and landings under supervision, all you say is " I am thinking of revalidating my SEP rating by means of a test at some time in the future - I would like a bit of training - exactly 3 circuits in fact - in preparation for that revalidation or renewal test". You take the training, log it as pu/t, and then at some time in the future you re-assess your intention to have the test.

Everyone should now be happy - instuctor gets p1, you get p u/t as you were undergoing training for a revalidation or renewal of a rating (6 hours of which can count into your 12 hours should you wish to go that way), you get 3 take offs and landings. No-one loses as far as i can see

[RW05]

Haven't been on for a while but we seem to have found another few controversies / inconsistencies in the rules. Where I fly PUT does not count for the 90 day rule. Think this may be the school covering their back, just in case something happens, it does away with the need to prove the instructor didn't take a hand. Seems P1/s is open to interpretation too. I've logged P1/s on flights with an instructor where he wasn't actually instructing and he's told me 'log it solo P1/s'. Obviously it's dodgy to do it without his agreement but are the rules different elswhere? Seems there is always a vast difference between JAR rules, the CAA's interpretation and flying schools' interpretation. Not a good situation for us!

[The Flying I]

Foxy-Black - "Where I fly PUT does not count for the 90 day rule". It's who is the sole manipulator of the controls which matters. Please tell us where this is!! and if this is in writing, please send it to AOPA (especially if they claim to be an AOPA approced training school, which basically means they can fill in a form and has enough money to write out a cheque for membership every year - wonder where the money comes from - rip off extra flying charges due to their own 90 day rules perhaps?)

[foxmoth]

Pu/t certainly counts LEGALLY for the 90 day rule, club rules are a seperate matter. I should change clubs to one that has a more sensible attitude.