90 Day Rule - revisited
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe this needs to be viewed in light of the groups accident record. 4 total losses in 6 years. http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...ing-group.html Pilot 1 is undertaking a check ride with Pilot 2 who in addition to being the check pilot is also head honcho of said flying group. Group rule says if your not 90 current then the check pilot will be P1 UNTIL 3 take offs and landings. Pilot 1 has no reason to suspect the arrangement is illegal after all Pilot 2 runs the flying group! All is fine and dandy until the CAA in its wisdom says NO - passengers cant log time and, therefore, you could do a hundred landings as a passenger and still not be current. SO Pilot 2 claims - er well I was only a passenger never had command. (also saves skin on insurance claim - no future accident record) Pilot 1 hung out to dry! Also rumor has it that two members of this sorry group were far from happy about the accident and the groups handling of safety and dodgy practices that they reported their concerns to the CAA - result was they were thrown out of said group by Pilot 2
Yes in the same way McDonalds etc put "Caution this hot cup of coffee is hot".
Unless you want to appear here I don't think there is very much ambiguous about unless you are seeking to avoid the obvious after the event....
‘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;….’
Unless you want to appear here I don't think there is very much ambiguous about unless you are seeking to avoid the obvious after the event....
‘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;….’
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's be honest - this sort of rule is only unclear to those who don't want it to mean what it clearly does.
If a group needs a policy where one member is able to check other members out for the 90 day rule, they should fund that members CRI rating as part of their costs, then everyone is happy and you're not trying to operate in some grey area of the law relying on misinterpretation of the rules.
Last edited by RTN11; 14th Jun 2013 at 16:44.
Maybe this needs to be viewed in light of the groups accident record. 4 total losses in 6 years. Anyone heard of the the Popham Flying Group? Pilot 1 is undertaking a check ride with Pilot 2 who in addition to being the check pilot is also head honcho of said flying group. Group rule says if your not 90 current then the check pilot will be P1 UNTIL 3 take offs and landings. Pilot 1 has no reason to suspect the arrangement is illegal after all Pilot 2 runs the flying group! All is fine and dandy until the CAA in its wisdom says NO - passengers cant log time and, therefore, you could do a hundred landings as a passenger and still not be current. SO Pilot 2 claims - er well I was only a passenger never had command. (also saves skin on insurance claim - no future accident record) Pilot 1 hung out to dry! Also rumor has it that two members of this sorry group were far from happy about the accident and the groups handling of safety and dodgy practices that they reported their concerns to the CAA - result was they were thrown out of said group by Pilot 2
As for the group seems that being "thrown" out of it just saved walking away on the basis Pilot 2 sounds a complete idiot and ultimately seems to have come to a natural conclusion?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I won't try to provide the counter argument to your viewpoint Pitts as it has already been written and if you didn't get it the first time you probably won't get it the second time. Whilst I will not insist that any particular interpretation is gospel, surely you can see that ambiguity exists. These threads and the CAA needing to provide a 'clarification' to the AAIB is evidence of that.
The rules, as you yourself quoted, state 'sole manipulator of the controls'. If it means PIC solo, or under dual instruction, why doesn't it say that? That would surely remove any doubt.
As I'm sure you know it is the letter of the law that matters and any semi competent lawyer could blow the CAA's opinion right out of the water. A lot of people read these rules and see what they think the rules are meant to mean, rather than what is actually written down.
The rules, as you yourself quoted, state 'sole manipulator of the controls'. If it means PIC solo, or under dual instruction, why doesn't it say that? That would surely remove any doubt.
As I'm sure you know it is the letter of the law that matters and any semi competent lawyer could blow the CAA's opinion right out of the water. A lot of people read these rules and see what they think the rules are meant to mean, rather than what is actually written down.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is certainly no question about pax being able to log time. That cannot happen. The rules, as they are written would seem to enable a pax to handle the aircraft, thus potentially meeting the requirements for the 90 day), while a current pilot was PIC in the other seat. The 90 day rule requires a number of takeoffs and landings, with no requirement for logged time and no specified crew role.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is there confusion? It seems very straightforward to me.
Only one person can be PIC in an aircraft certified for single pilot operations. Anybody else is an instructor or passenger. If you're not current you cannot carry a passenger - so you either have to regain currency solo or with an instructor. Simple.
Only one person can be PIC in an aircraft certified for single pilot operations. Anybody else is an instructor or passenger. If you're not current you cannot carry a passenger - so you either have to regain currency solo or with an instructor. Simple.
Last edited by wb9999; 14th Jun 2013 at 17:35.
TT - I think you hit the nail on the head when you go down the lawyer route.
I'm not seeking to get into more arguments but speaking for myself I'm less interested in how the lawyers might react and more interested in being safe.
In the end - and using the example here as it was the context of the thread - I don't think it is terribly difficult to understand what was required or expected.
Have you flown in the last 90 days? No
Am I flying alone? No
Is the person in the aircraft an instructor? No
Am I P1 or is he P1? .......
I mean OK you can dance around this with a variety and try and be smart with words. In the end that AAIB report suggests there were some serious injuries. That is tells you all you need to know.
I'm not seeking to get into more arguments but speaking for myself I'm less interested in how the lawyers might react and more interested in being safe.
In the end - and using the example here as it was the context of the thread - I don't think it is terribly difficult to understand what was required or expected.
Have you flown in the last 90 days? No
Am I flying alone? No
Is the person in the aircraft an instructor? No
Am I P1 or is he P1? .......
I mean OK you can dance around this with a variety and try and be smart with words. In the end that AAIB report suggests there were some serious injuries. That is tells you all you need to know.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point was merely that Pilot 2 (the so called check pilot) was operating on the basis that Pilot 1 was a passenger until he completed 3 take offs and landings. A position which is not tenable. Pilot 2 presumably, encouraged Pilot 1 to undertake the flight. The 90 day rule, as has been said is not complex and is only a problem if you're trying to wriggle and cheat - There are plenty of instructors available. And being thrown out would be the best solution especially since Pilot 2 is still the main check pilot and group chairman and the group is an unincorporated body so god help them in the event of a fatality!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pitts, I agree we all want to be safe. It is clear that the pilots involved in this accident were of low experience, and made mistakes. I would suggest that by having a current pilot group member in the other seat, there was a better chance of a happy ending than had the pilot been re-qualifying solo. The other guy ideally would have told him to watch his speed as he mishandled the go-around. Solo that definitely could not have happened.
If we are talking about the spirit of the 90 day rule and its intentions, I would suggest that it is to protect layman passengers who have no knowledge of the risks of flying from insufficiently current pilots. Placing a current pilot next to the uncurrent one is a very different situation from placing an ignorant passenger next to the uncurrent pilot. Highly experienced pilots are constrained by this rule just as much as the very inexperienced.
Finn
I fundamentally disagree with the implication you are making. If you can prove your point with reference to the rules please do so.
If we are talking about the spirit of the 90 day rule and its intentions, I would suggest that it is to protect layman passengers who have no knowledge of the risks of flying from insufficiently current pilots. Placing a current pilot next to the uncurrent one is a very different situation from placing an ignorant passenger next to the uncurrent pilot. Highly experienced pilots are constrained by this rule just as much as the very inexperienced.
Finn
The 90 day rule, as has been said is not complex and is only a problem if you're trying to wriggle and cheat
Last edited by Torque Tonight; 14th Jun 2013 at 17:51.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sole manipulator of the controls makes it more confusing BUT the need for 3 takeoffs and landings is straight forward. It can be done solo or with an instructor if not 90 day current or with passengers if current, in order to maintain currency. Its quite clear from the AAIB report that Pilot 1 was out of 90 day currency. Pilot 2 was aware of this and undertook the flight as P1 allowing Pilot 1 to operate the controls UNTIL 3 take offs and landing had taken place. The CAA informed Pilot 2 that this position was illegal so Pilot 2 changes his story to - I was only a passenger - its Pilot 1 that was P1. I guess the CAA don't want to get involved here - I think it would have been different had there been fatalities
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You see, you haven't actually referenced the rules. You've just re-stated an opinion.
Why not? If it was illegal why not prosecute in this case? If there were fatalities there would have been no-one alive to prosecute, so no day in court. This would have been the ideal opportunity to set legal precedent.
I guess the CAA don't want to get involved here - I think it would have been different had there been fatalities
Last edited by Torque Tonight; 14th Jun 2013 at 18:30.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because an aircraft is certified for single pilot operation doesn't mean it can't be operated by two pilots. Loads of business-class turboprops & light bizjets are certified for single pilot operation but normally flown by two. Only one person can be PIC, but the second person could be a second pilot but neither instructor nor passenger.
The CAA have made a statement but given no reason why a second person on board who isn't an instructor can not be the pilot in command. It's very unlike them not to quote a rule when making a statement which makes me thing that this comment was not given by someone senior.
Why do they automatically become a passenger? Why don't they retain their pilot in command status? What makes someone handling the controls of the aircraft a pilot in command?
Why do they automatically become a passenger? Why don't they retain their pilot in command status? What makes someone handling the controls of the aircraft a pilot in command?
Last edited by Sillert,V.I.; 14th Jun 2013 at 19:07.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that the wording of the rule is far from satisfactory - it seems to have been taken out of the FAA rules. But I can also see that implicit within any rule that requires a set number of takeoffs/landings there is a requirement to log these. Surely it is a QED. If there is a requirement to do it then to be asked to demonstrate compliance is assumed. Ive never had a ramp check in the UK but I assume there is the ability to perform one. Additionally, these questions really only become of concern after an accident. My point concerning fatalities was not just about those in the aircraft, rather if said aircraft had come down a few metres to the north on the A303 there could well have been serious damage - a Daily Mail - horror light aircraft crash kills innocents
Last edited by fin100; 14th Jun 2013 at 18:57.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm still confused.
Just because an aircraft is certified for single pilot operation doesn't mean it can't be operated by two pilots. Loads of business-class turboprops & light bizjets are certified for single pilot operation but normally flown by two. Only one person can be PIC, but the second person could be a second pilot but neither instructor nor passenger.
Just because an aircraft is certified for single pilot operation doesn't mean it can't be operated by two pilots. Loads of business-class turboprops & light bizjets are certified for single pilot operation but normally flown by two. Only one person can be PIC, but the second person could be a second pilot but neither instructor nor passenger.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought this kak had been done to death several times.
If you are not an INSTRUCTOR you are a PASSENGER, It doesn't matter if you are a 50000hr ex Mil ATPL Bush pilot, Unless it says INSTRUCTOR on your licence & INSTRUCTOR is up to date you are still a passenger & cannot sit in the aircraft in any of the seats. "Sole manipulator" is meant to mean "the instructor shouldn't help".
Shirley it ain't rocket science, unless as somone said you are trying to fiddle it.
If you are not an INSTRUCTOR you are a PASSENGER, It doesn't matter if you are a 50000hr ex Mil ATPL Bush pilot, Unless it says INSTRUCTOR on your licence & INSTRUCTOR is up to date you are still a passenger & cannot sit in the aircraft in any of the seats. "Sole manipulator" is meant to mean "the instructor shouldn't help".
Shirley it ain't rocket science, unless as somone said you are trying to fiddle it.