Flying with passengers rule....
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole point of the regulation is to prevent people who don't have clue about the risks being exposed to an uncurrent pilot.
Someone who understands the risk isn't an issue otherwise they wouldn't let you do it solo.
There isn't a safety case to ban it either because its been happening for years and nothing has been highlight in the accident stats otherwise they would have banned it years ago.
Someone who understands the risk isn't an issue otherwise they wouldn't let you do it solo.
There isn't a safety case to ban it either because its been happening for years and nothing has been highlight in the accident stats otherwise they would have banned it years ago.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the discussion is about the legality of taking another pilot when doing your 3 to/landings, with some differing views. As far as I can see no one has actually argued that it should be the case, on safety or any other grounds.
This is a pretty meaningless statement, MJ, how can they ban something that is already not permitted?
Don't think we will reach agreement on this one here.
BB
Originally Posted by MJ
they would have banned it years ago
Don't think we will reach agreement on this one here.
BB
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it is permitted.
Not only that there are several charity events around the country which ppl's and there planes give hands on experence flights. The caa know about these and quite often there are off duty flight ops inspectors involved in these worthy causes. Some of which shock horror arn't instructor rated on class.
Currently there have been zero prosecutions and it is pretty much a multiple daily even't none qualified on class handling the controls without an instructor on board.
Not only that there are several charity events around the country which ppl's and there planes give hands on experence flights. The caa know about these and quite often there are off duty flight ops inspectors involved in these worthy causes. Some of which shock horror arn't instructor rated on class.
Currently there have been zero prosecutions and it is pretty much a multiple daily even't none qualified on class handling the controls without an instructor on board.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flybymike: It certainly seems ironic that a qualified and current pilot may fly as a passenger with a medically restricted one and be expected to save the day if the other collapses at the wheel, but yet the same pilot may not fly with another who is fit and well just in case they both crash and perish because one of them has only done two landings in the last 90 days (maybe even both of them yesterday)
MJ: I wasn't suggesting it's law, just providing a reference to answer backpackers question.
I think the answer to the OP is that the law isn't 100% clear. The problem will only occur if you have an accident!
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, just slightly off subject. If you are a member of group owned aircraft, and one of your members has not flown in say 5 months, how would you require him to get up to date to fly passengers?
A. Have him fly once with a instructor, then do 3 TO/LDs solo.
B. Fly once with a group member, then do 3 TO/LDs solo.
C. Fly all his 3 TO/LDs with a group member.
D. Fly all his 3 TO/LDs solo.
Also would you require him to do any of he above to just fly solo?
BTW. I dont think Touch+Gos count towards the three requirement, it surely has to be brakes off to brakes on to be logged as one flight.
A. Have him fly once with a instructor, then do 3 TO/LDs solo.
B. Fly once with a group member, then do 3 TO/LDs solo.
C. Fly all his 3 TO/LDs with a group member.
D. Fly all his 3 TO/LDs solo.
Also would you require him to do any of he above to just fly solo?
BTW. I dont think Touch+Gos count towards the three requirement, it surely has to be brakes off to brakes on to be logged as one flight.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
phiggsbroadband
It would depend on what is written in you group contract and insurance! But from the CAA/EASA point of view it would be either option D or
option E: fly with instructor and do 3 TO/LDGs with him.
depending on experience, the instructor can then determine if any more training is needed, I doubt it though.
Touch and Go's are fine, there is no requirement for a "flight" to only have 1 take off and landing.
It would depend on what is written in you group contract and insurance! But from the CAA/EASA point of view it would be either option D or
option E: fly with instructor and do 3 TO/LDGs with him.
depending on experience, the instructor can then determine if any more training is needed, I doubt it though.
Touch and Go's are fine, there is no requirement for a "flight" to only have 1 take off and landing.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In our group rules, between 45 and 90 days, fly with another current member of the group (ie me).
Longer than 90 days, a check ride including multiple circuits with a friendly local instructor who knows us and the aircraft.
Longer than 90 days, a check ride including multiple circuits with a friendly local instructor who knows us and the aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Unna, Germany
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A. Have him fly once with a instructor, then do 3 TO/LDs solo.
B. Fly once with a group member, then do 3 TO/LDs solo.
C. Fly all his 3 TO/LDs with a group member.
D. Fly all his 3 TO/LDs solo.
Also would you require him to do any of he above to just fly solo?
BTW. I dont think Touch+Gos count towards the three requirement, it surely has to be brakes off to brakes on to be logged as one flight.
B. Fly once with a group member, then do 3 TO/LDs solo.
C. Fly all his 3 TO/LDs with a group member.
D. Fly all his 3 TO/LDs solo.
Also would you require him to do any of he above to just fly solo?
BTW. I dont think Touch+Gos count towards the three requirement, it surely has to be brakes off to brakes on to be logged as one flight.
However, the CAA states on it's website the following - that there needs to be 3 takes offs and landings - no mention of full stop, irrespective of tail wheel or tricycle....
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
phiggsbroadband - there is no mention that the three landings have to be three separate flights, most people simply do three touch and gos if they need them, then put 3 in the landings column or in the remarks so it is clear they have met the requirement.
elsewhere in the same rule book, in the requirements for a night rating it does specifically say a full stop landing, so I would take the fact that in this instance it does not state full stop, a touch and go is fine (assuming the rules were written by the same person
)
elsewhere in the same rule book, in the requirements for a night rating it does specifically say a full stop landing, so I would take the fact that in this instance it does not state full stop, a touch and go is fine (assuming the rules were written by the same person
)
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The role of safety pilot is completely different, don't introduce more confusion. The safety pilot is just that...a safety pilot, a required member of the crew and is not a passenger. They can log it as SNY.
An NPPL flying on a medical restriction is entitled to fly solo but can only carry a qualified pilot as a passenger. That pilot is not required crew.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They could do all of them phill.
Instructor checkpout with one circuit then another couple solo.
3 solo
Another group member as PIC who is inside 90 and the person does the landing.
And no accident has happen yet so there is no case law which just shows you the risk you are taking
Crack on take your PPL mate up as PIC. And be done with it.
Instructor checkpout with one circuit then another couple solo.
3 solo
Another group member as PIC who is inside 90 and the person does the landing.
And no accident has happen yet so there is no case law which just shows you the risk you are taking
Crack on take your PPL mate up as PIC. And be done with it.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And no accident has happen yet so there is no case law which just shows you the risk you are taking
Crack on take your PPL mate up as PIC. And be done with it.
Crack on take your PPL mate up as PIC. And be done with it.
The example I have in mind ( a real one) was of a pilot out of currency flying as handling pilot with a mate. He screwed up on landing and wrote the aircraft off.
The PIC, very generously, said he had been the handling pilot. Fortunately there were only minor injuries but, due to the generosity of the PIC, the insurance paid out.
As you say "Crack on take your PPL mate up as PIC. And be done with it."
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The example I have in mind ( a real one) was of a pilot out of currency flying as handling pilot with a mate. He screwed up on landing and wrote the aircraft off.
The PIC, very generously, said he had been the handling pilot. Fortunately there were only minor injuries but, due to the generosity of the PIC, the insurance paid out.
The PIC, very generously, said he had been the handling pilot. Fortunately there were only minor injuries but, due to the generosity of the PIC, the insurance paid out.
So, not only does the handling pilot not have a blot on his record, assuming that was his 3rd landing then
he is also (according to some) now current to take passengers.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last time I flew my supercub, landing back at White Waltham, I got three landings and takeoffs all in one go...boing, boing boing...(blush)
Thereby now being qualified to carry pax in the UK. However, according to the FAA, and Steve643, in the US a taildragger must come to a complete stop every time....
Thereby now being qualified to carry pax in the UK. However, according to the FAA, and Steve643, in the US a taildragger must come to a complete stop every time....
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't matter if the PIC is handling or not its still there problem.
As for the insurance side of things, just go and ask them
I have and also know several groups that also have. Also had it in writing as well that they are insured for it with none instructors. With PPL PIC and other handling the controls.
I was for a period a checker for a group with no valid SEP. Couldn't quite work that one out either. But insurance broker was happy to list me as one and the person flew as PIC and was inside 90 days.
As for the insurance side of things, just go and ask them
I have and also know several groups that also have. Also had it in writing as well that they are insured for it with none instructors. With PPL PIC and other handling the controls.
I was for a period a checker for a group with no valid SEP. Couldn't quite work that one out either. But insurance broker was happy to list me as one and the person flew as PIC and was inside 90 days.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone's enjoying confusing group rules, insurance and the law. From a purely legal perspective (unless they've radically changed things and I've missed it) the requirement is that in the last 90 days you've done 3 takeoffs and landings as sole manipulator of the controls. If you haven't done it go out and do them on your own. No problem.
If you are nervous about your currency and want someone with you then you need someone else who will be PIC while you do it because legally you cannot be PIC if he/she is in the a/c with you because you're outside the 90 day rule. (Not too difficult so far?).
If you read your finely crafted ANO you will find nothing in there that prevents you as PIC from teaching your granny to fly, however if she was
you would need to have an FI rating. (see Art 80) If you hand over the controls to someone else there's nothing to stop you from continuing to be PIC although Art 93 requires "a pilot" to be strapped in at the controls at all times and in an a/c that requires 2 pilots, "2 pilots" during take-off and landing. Note it specifies "a pilot" not "the commander", so you can quite legally be PIC while chatting up the flight attendant in the aft galley so long as the FO is strapped in up front.
Ergo IMHO there would be nothing illegal in me being PIC with no FI rating while one of my fellow group members poled it around the sky. On a practical level, if he felt so insecure that he thought my being there was better than him doing it solo I might demur on the grounds of common sense. He of course would not be able to log the time as a crew member because he wouldn't be qualified so to act.
You all know the privileges of your license, e.g. PPL(A)
Aerial Work is defined in Art 259. Letting your mate have a pole is not per se Aerial Work.
There is no requirement to log the fact that you've done 3 landings to retain your currency, in fact there's no requirement to log landings at all (see Art 79) you could quite happily go up with another pilot for an hour with you each logging 30 min as PIC and him doing the landing(s). It would however be sensible to record doing them so you have the answer to hand if asked.
If they wanted the person doing the landings to be PIC or Pu/t they would have said so, the fact that they used the terminology "sole manipulator of the controls" is good enough in my book to indicate that that is precisely what they meant.
Final caveat, the fact that something is legal does not mean it's sensible and it doesn't protect you from being done under some other provision, e.g. for endangerment under the Civil Aviation Act.
If you are nervous about your currency and want someone with you then you need someone else who will be PIC while you do it because legally you cannot be PIC if he/she is in the a/c with you because you're outside the 90 day rule. (Not too difficult so far?).
If you read your finely crafted ANO you will find nothing in there that prevents you as PIC from teaching your granny to fly, however if she was
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 rating or qualification in a pilot's licence.
(a) the grant of a pilot's licence; or
(b) the inclusion or variation of any rating or qualification in a pilot's licence.
Ergo IMHO there would be nothing illegal in me being PIC with no FI rating while one of my fellow group members poled it around the sky. On a practical level, if he felt so insecure that he thought my being there was better than him doing it solo I might demur on the grounds of common sense. He of course would not be able to log the time as a crew member because he wouldn't be qualified so to act.
You all know the privileges of your license, e.g. PPL(A)
(2) The holder may not:
(a) fly such an aeroplane for the purpose of commercial air transport, public transport
or aerial work except in accordance with paragraph (3);
(a) fly such an aeroplane for the purpose of commercial air transport, public transport
or aerial work except in accordance with paragraph (3);
There is no requirement to log the fact that you've done 3 landings to retain your currency, in fact there's no requirement to log landings at all (see Art 79) you could quite happily go up with another pilot for an hour with you each logging 30 min as PIC and him doing the landing(s). It would however be sensible to record doing them so you have the answer to hand if asked.
If they wanted the person doing the landings to be PIC or Pu/t they would have said so, the fact that they used the terminology "sole manipulator of the controls" is good enough in my book to indicate that that is precisely what they meant.
Final caveat, the fact that something is legal does not mean it's sensible and it doesn't protect you from being done under some other provision, e.g. for endangerment under the Civil Aviation Act.
Last edited by Mike Cross; 26th Nov 2012 at 05:05.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phiggsbroadband
We have a 28 day currency requirement in our contract. This may be waived if certain conditions are met. We use a checkout with an instructor to regain currency. This usually consists of a few circuits, sometimes a bit of general handling depending on the length of time elapsed.
Works for us; keeps the insurance company happy and keeps the group happy.
We have a 28 day currency requirement in our contract. This may be waived if certain conditions are met. We use a checkout with an instructor to regain currency. This usually consists of a few circuits, sometimes a bit of general handling depending on the length of time elapsed.
Works for us; keeps the insurance company happy and keeps the group happy.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(unless they've radically changed things and I've missed it)
EASA uses a different wording. See my earlier post on that subject.
FCL.060 Recent experience
[...]
(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 [...]
[...]
(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 [...]
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It to me is even less defined than previously.
Sole manipulator states what you have to do.
Carried out is less so.
I do 4-6 approaches a day I carried out each one of them due to the fact I am on the ground after everyone of them and provided input into each one and I am required to be there. 50% plus of them I don't touch the stick but I do select flap and gear and flick some switches and do checklists.
Sole manipulator states what you have to do.
Carried out is less so.
I do 4-6 approaches a day I carried out each one of them due to the fact I am on the ground after everyone of them and provided input into each one and I am required to be there. 50% plus of them I don't touch the stick but I do select flap and gear and flick some switches and do checklists.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London UK
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So instead of "sole manipulator of the controls" we now have "carried out". Which implies to me that he has to perform all duties of the pilot, including being responsible for the conduct of the flight. Not just manipulating the controls.
Given the endless debates over "sole manipulator", and the obvious safety issues, I wonder why they could not just say what they meant.
Perhaps this is a classic "Euro-fudge". Perhaps they could not decide, so they simply wrote something meaningless and hoped that nobody would notice. I am sure they still got paid...
