90 Day Rule - revisited
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
It is high time that the 90 day rule was rewitten in unambiguous terms
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by robin; 14th Jun 2013 at 09:50.
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.
Last edited by Mariner9; 14th Jun 2013 at 10:13.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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;
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;
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
(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
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.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by foxmoth; 14th Jun 2013 at 15:09.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.