90 Day Rule - revisited
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crash One, it's not difficult, it's badly worded.
The term "preceding 90 days" is wrong. I suspect that anyone prosecuted for this would be able to argue successfully that the intent of the rule makers was that after flying three t/o & landings in the last 90 days, you are good to go with pax.
Even if one of the circuits was this morning and the other 2 were 89 days ago. I certainly don't have an issue with the case that sparked this topic, and I'm sure it was the subject of an earlier topic about lying on AAIB/Insurance forms.
Club rules are one thing, but the law is another. In the instance referred to here, I wonder if a tech log entry was made before they took off stating who was PIC. Obviously it can't be the guy out of 90 day currency as he's not allowed to take passengers.
As I understand it, it shouldn't be of any use to them to have the other guy as PIC as that prevents the guy needing the three landings being unable to log them as he would just be a passenger. If he was to do the three circuits during that flight he'd be carrying a pax while doing so.
The original incident would have been better handled by either having an instructor fly with him, or he uses an aircraft that he's already checked out on to do three solo circuits before flying the incident aircraft as PIC with an experienced guy alongside to "advise" him on that airframe.
Club rules need to take that kind of thing into account. If in doubt, fly with an instructor. How could two guys who are qualified Pilots not know this when they got in the aircraft?
One of them is about to take a passenger despite being out of 90 days and the other is about to get in (as a passenger) an aircraft with a Pilot who is not allowed to take passengers.
The term "preceding 90 days" is wrong. I suspect that anyone prosecuted for this would be able to argue successfully that the intent of the rule makers was that after flying three t/o & landings in the last 90 days, you are good to go with pax.
Even if one of the circuits was this morning and the other 2 were 89 days ago. I certainly don't have an issue with the case that sparked this topic, and I'm sure it was the subject of an earlier topic about lying on AAIB/Insurance forms.
Club rules are one thing, but the law is another. In the instance referred to here, I wonder if a tech log entry was made before they took off stating who was PIC. Obviously it can't be the guy out of 90 day currency as he's not allowed to take passengers.
As I understand it, it shouldn't be of any use to them to have the other guy as PIC as that prevents the guy needing the three landings being unable to log them as he would just be a passenger. If he was to do the three circuits during that flight he'd be carrying a pax while doing so.
The original incident would have been better handled by either having an instructor fly with him, or he uses an aircraft that he's already checked out on to do three solo circuits before flying the incident aircraft as PIC with an experienced guy alongside to "advise" him on that airframe.
Club rules need to take that kind of thing into account. If in doubt, fly with an instructor. How could two guys who are qualified Pilots not know this when they got in the aircraft?
One of them is about to take a passenger despite being out of 90 days and the other is about to get in (as a passenger) an aircraft with a Pilot who is not allowed to take passengers.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How could two guys who are qualified Pilots not know this when they got in the aircraft?
Which have been going on for years and years. And to be honest this is the first accident I have seen dealing with it.
Sometimes there a few "check pilots" who are not instructors defined in the insurance docs. for doing group checks.
The person demonstrates to that check pilot that they are fit to fly the aircraft obviously not as PIC if outside 90 days.
Then they are insured to fly "solo"
To those outside groups this might seem all a bit weird but its very normal. there must be hundreds of these types of flights happening every year up and down the country. Mainly because of the requirements of insurance firms.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jock, I understand that, and I have been a member of a club where "experienced" pilots had delegated authority from the CFI to carry out such "check rides" but only as an observer. The PIC still needs to be current.
As for insurance company rules.... Since the CAA don't make a requirement for differences training between some SSEA aircraft, it makes sense for the new guy moving up an airframe, or back after a long break, to have some familiarity in the presence of a recently experienced (on airframe) Pilot.
I would not be happy to take the controls from the right hand seat to get the feel of a new aircraft unless there was an instructor in the left hand seat, and if there is an instructor onboard, why is he not in the right hand seat?
I hear that it happens all the time, but I have never allowed anyone (except a current pilot) to manipulate the controls when I am PIC. I don't give my passengers a "clutch" as I am not an instructor and the consequences are dire.
If your pal bumps the aircraft, you face two rather unpleasant options. Either say that you bumped it or admit teaching without an instructor rating.
Is there a connection with this thread?
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...ce-please.html
As for insurance company rules.... Since the CAA don't make a requirement for differences training between some SSEA aircraft, it makes sense for the new guy moving up an airframe, or back after a long break, to have some familiarity in the presence of a recently experienced (on airframe) Pilot.
I would not be happy to take the controls from the right hand seat to get the feel of a new aircraft unless there was an instructor in the left hand seat, and if there is an instructor onboard, why is he not in the right hand seat?
I hear that it happens all the time, but I have never allowed anyone (except a current pilot) to manipulate the controls when I am PIC. I don't give my passengers a "clutch" as I am not an instructor and the consequences are dire.
If your pal bumps the aircraft, you face two rather unpleasant options. Either say that you bumped it or admit teaching without an instructor rating.
Is there a connection with this thread?
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...ce-please.html
Can someone give me some advice about this. A friend mine was involved in a plane crash and they told him to send the insurance claim report to the guy in his group who looks after the paperwork. When this guy saw the report he told my friend to alter some of the details about what happened, like the number of 90 day take off and landings he had done and things like that. They said he should send the same report to the AAIB. He was still ill at the time but now he is not sure that’s right could he be in trouble here?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with what you are saying Jock. But how many of these check rides per group rules are done with "PIC" out of ANO currency?
If the checkee is out of 90 day current it is illegal unless the other guy is a current instructor, regardless of insurance rules saying "Check pilot current on type but not necessarily instructor, shirley?
As for one day late & you are incapable of flying the a/c, bloody stupid, but, the law. I had "instruction" from an ex instructor (year out of date) on my a/c (under the hood stuff). He was not tailwheel qualified either, just a pax with the brain power. If we had bent it I was responsible. I logged the time as P1 (not as instruction), he enjoyed the ride. Simples.
As for giving unqualified pax a "go" I have no issue with that, subject to my assessment of their capacity to let go when I say so. & if they don't & we bore a hole in the ground then it's my hole not his.
Is'nt this common dog savvy? or am I gonna get nailed for that incorrectly positioned apostrophe?
So what is wrong with it? 90 days is 90 days. They have to say something in terms of time limit. "About three months" would be good enough for most people except the pedantics. Preceding? well it would be easy to say "I promise to do 3 t&go in the subsequent 90days".
If the checkee is out of 90 day current it is illegal unless the other guy is a current instructor, regardless of insurance rules saying "Check pilot current on type but not necessarily instructor, shirley?
As for one day late & you are incapable of flying the a/c, bloody stupid, but, the law. I had "instruction" from an ex instructor (year out of date) on my a/c (under the hood stuff). He was not tailwheel qualified either, just a pax with the brain power. If we had bent it I was responsible. I logged the time as P1 (not as instruction), he enjoyed the ride. Simples.
As for giving unqualified pax a "go" I have no issue with that, subject to my assessment of their capacity to let go when I say so. & if they don't & we bore a hole in the ground then it's my hole not his.
Is'nt this common dog savvy? or am I gonna get nailed for that incorrectly positioned apostrophe?
Crash One, it's not difficult, it's badly worded.
The term "preceding 90 days" is wrong. I suspect that anyone prosecuted for this would be able to argue successfully that the intent of the rule makers was that after flying three t/o & landings in the last 90 days, you are good to go with pax.
Even if one of the circuits was this morning and the other 2 were 89 days ago.
The term "preceding 90 days" is wrong. I suspect that anyone prosecuted for this would be able to argue successfully that the intent of the rule makers was that after flying three t/o & landings in the last 90 days, you are good to go with pax.
Even if one of the circuits was this morning and the other 2 were 89 days ago.
Last edited by Crash one; 15th Jun 2013 at 14:12.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the ones I know of the PIC is the checking pilots. The other pilot can only be PIC for insurance after the check.
Another special is instructors don't have the 90 rule while instructing ie they can be out side 90 days on class and still take a student up. They can't however take a 4 seater up on a trial flight with folk in the back.
There are a group of people out there including some in the CAA that believe none licensed pax should never touch the controls.
There is a bigger group including some from the CAA that think its perfectly acceptable and its been going on for years with no safety issues. In fact they believe it shows good airmanship by sorting out pax that feel sick and off loading the PIC to do nav while pax flys S&L. It also allows flight companions who have done the safety course to practise the skills they learnt.
If this is the first prang in 30-40 years of group checking pilots outside 90days it really isn't an issue. I don't think the CAA will be taking them to court unless this silly sods plead guilty.
Another special is instructors don't have the 90 rule while instructing ie they can be out side 90 days on class and still take a student up. They can't however take a 4 seater up on a trial flight with folk in the back.
There are a group of people out there including some in the CAA that believe none licensed pax should never touch the controls.
There is a bigger group including some from the CAA that think its perfectly acceptable and its been going on for years with no safety issues. In fact they believe it shows good airmanship by sorting out pax that feel sick and off loading the PIC to do nav while pax flys S&L. It also allows flight companions who have done the safety course to practise the skills they learnt.
If this is the first prang in 30-40 years of group checking pilots outside 90days it really isn't an issue. I don't think the CAA will be taking them to court unless this silly sods plead guilty.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
h
Do you have to be an owner of an aeroplane to fly it?!
If you look up G-ARHN its a trustee and I think the point was that as a co-owner you have no way of knowing who else is also a co-owner.
So if said Pilot 2 was not a co-owner then he would have flown HN illegally and presumably uninsured as well - might show motive for wanting to change your story - but if true I'd be surprised if the CAA didn't want to pursue it. Also why is it not illegal instruction as no instructor ticket?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also why is it not illegal instruction as no instructor ticket?
Its been happening hundreds of times a year for years with no issues.
Personally I can't see a problem with it. Most experienced PPL's who are down as check pilots on insurance have way way more clue than some 200 hour zero to hero pillock who has just come out of the magneta line borg process.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its been happening hundreds of times a year for years with no issues.
Personally I can't see a problem with it. Most experienced PPL's who are down as check pilots on insurance have way way more clue than some 200 hour zero to hero pillock who has just come out of the magneta line borg process.
Personally I can't see a problem with it. Most experienced PPL's who are down as check pilots on insurance have way way more clue than some 200 hour zero to hero pillock who has just come out of the magneta line borg process.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yep this one occasion.
But having this magical instructors ticket doesn't cure all.
I have seen tail strikes
Landings where the wheels have left rubber under the tommys wings.
Leaving the runway and cutting the grass with a green prop for the next month.
Hangers hit.
Fuel bowsers hit.
Fences hit.
All with a magical instructor onboard.
And there are enough accidents of a similar nature with 20 hour a week current instructors onboard some of them fatal.
Stopping the practise will have zero affect on the accident stats.
But having this magical instructors ticket doesn't cure all.
I have seen tail strikes
Landings where the wheels have left rubber under the tommys wings.
Leaving the runway and cutting the grass with a green prop for the next month.
Hangers hit.
Fuel bowsers hit.
Fences hit.
All with a magical instructor onboard.
And there are enough accidents of a similar nature with 20 hour a week current instructors onboard some of them fatal.
Stopping the practise will have zero affect on the accident stats.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- As has been stated many times - it happens all the time - group check pilots - no instructor ticket - checking out lesser mortals
- Now there is a problem because the Rookie checkee let the vref drop say from 65-70mph to 40ish
- Pilot 2 for some reason forgot what he was doing there and failed to spot said speed decay
- Is there really a problem in the wording of the 90 day rule? does anyone really think its confusing?
Whats worrying here is in the AAIB report its stated that Pilot 1 believed Pilot 2 was commanding. Only when Pilot 2 was informed that this was problematic was the story changed.
What were his last words? "you have control"
Stopping the practise will have zero affect on the accident stats.
Last edited by fin100; 15th Jun 2013 at 17:15.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't we all know that if you've not flown 3 takeoff/landings in last 90 days its either an instructor or solo. Or am I missing something here?
I haven't flown in the LHS of a SEP for getting on 10 years and 1000 hours.
My instructors rating is now up. Am I now banned from flying in RHS? Do I need to do a course to learn how to fly in the LHS again?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fin100 wrote:
That's how most of us interpret the rule, but not what it states. We all (I believe) accept that to mean today and the 89 days before today.
The preceding 90 days is up until last night.
That's what needs changed.
Crash One, it's a matter of defining exactly which 90 days that the rule applies to.
takeoff/landings in last 90 days
The preceding 90 days is up until last night.
That's what needs changed.
Crash One, it's a matter of defining exactly which 90 days that the rule applies to.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again I may be missing something but which seat you wish to fly from is surely up to you - convention has LH for command or PUT.
Sole manipulator of controls is surely, though not defined, whilst with an instructor, doing it yourself.
I thought the problem with this incident was that Pilot 2 was not an instructor and Pilot 1 had a long expired passenger currency. So whatever way it goes it was an illegal flight. Except if Pilot 2 was P1 and accepts the responsibility for the incident instead of insisting it was the other chaps fault - in which case Pilot 1 was illegally carrying a passenger.
I'm sure there's more going on here than meets the eye - in fact the report has taken many months to come out which would seem to show something happening behind the scenes.
Would be interesting to see how the insurers reacted and if they paid up
Sole manipulator of controls is surely, though not defined, whilst with an instructor, doing it yourself.
I thought the problem with this incident was that Pilot 2 was not an instructor and Pilot 1 had a long expired passenger currency. So whatever way it goes it was an illegal flight. Except if Pilot 2 was P1 and accepts the responsibility for the incident instead of insisting it was the other chaps fault - in which case Pilot 1 was illegally carrying a passenger.
I'm sure there's more going on here than meets the eye - in fact the report has taken many months to come out which would seem to show something happening behind the scenes.
Would be interesting to see how the insurers reacted and if they paid up
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am 100% sure of that as well.
The report says at the time of the accident pilot 1 had already completed the 3 TO's and landings. So actually at the time of the crash they were legal. Just there is some discussions about the previous ones.
The fact that Pilot 2 obviously was got at by someone which then made on paper the previous flights illegal. But quite how they managed that if they signed out the aircraft through the techlog I don't know.
I can't see how you can believe you were PIC before and during the flight to then decide afterwards you weren't because someone has had words with you. If you were PIC and the flight was illegal then that's just plain tuff you can't change your mind afterwards.
The report says at the time of the accident pilot 1 had already completed the 3 TO's and landings. So actually at the time of the crash they were legal. Just there is some discussions about the previous ones.
The fact that Pilot 2 obviously was got at by someone which then made on paper the previous flights illegal. But quite how they managed that if they signed out the aircraft through the techlog I don't know.
I can't see how you can believe you were PIC before and during the flight to then decide afterwards you weren't because someone has had words with you. If you were PIC and the flight was illegal then that's just plain tuff you can't change your mind afterwards.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They had only completed one landing prior to the accident, so at the time it was illegal.
Edit: sorry, misread the report. Pilot 2 had demonstrated one landing. It does not say how many landing pilot 1 had completed. The accident happened on the final approach, so it could have been the third landing.
Edit: sorry, misread the report. Pilot 2 had demonstrated one landing. It does not say how many landing pilot 1 had completed. The accident happened on the final approach, so it could have been the third landing.
Last edited by wb9999; 15th Jun 2013 at 20:25.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought. I know lots of groups operate a system where to be let loose with the aircraft a check ride is performed if you haven't flown in so many days.
I'm assuming here that if you're out of 90 day currency the check pilot acts as P1 whist you prove your competence because being out of check means you cant take passengers or log any flight time and, therefore, landings
Then if satisfied you get kicked off on your own to re-qualify on the 90 day thing.
This goes unnoticed until an accident occurs and the check pilot thinks - this could be bad for me - I believe I was only a passenger. Although the check pilot probably arranged the flight and knew Pilot 1 was not current etc etc, so something does not smell right here.
And who pays for the flight? If its Pilot 1 and Pilot 2 logs the time as P1 then it ceases to be a private flight
I'm assuming here that if you're out of 90 day currency the check pilot acts as P1 whist you prove your competence because being out of check means you cant take passengers or log any flight time and, therefore, landings
Then if satisfied you get kicked off on your own to re-qualify on the 90 day thing.
This goes unnoticed until an accident occurs and the check pilot thinks - this could be bad for me - I believe I was only a passenger. Although the check pilot probably arranged the flight and knew Pilot 1 was not current etc etc, so something does not smell right here.
And who pays for the flight? If its Pilot 1 and Pilot 2 logs the time as P1 then it ceases to be a private flight
Last edited by fin100; 15th Jun 2013 at 20:45.