90 Day Rule - revisited
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP804 does stipulate you must be a member of the flight crew for the 3 take offs and landings - which in a single pilot certified aircraft means you must be solo or with an instructor. Sole manipulation of the controls is also stated in a later section, but it is very clear you must be a pilot while undertaking them.
With regards to."sole manipulation of the controls", the Air Navigation Order has the following:
Pilot to remain at controls and be secured in seat
93.—(1)*This article applies to any flying machine or glider registered in the United Kingdom other than an EU-OPS aeroplane flying on a commercial air transport flight.
(2)*The commander of an aircraft to which this article applies must cause one pilot to remain at the controls at all times while it is in flight.
AFAIK, the ANO does not prohibit passengers flying the aircraft, but if a pilot must be at the controls at all times then a passenger is not in sole manipulation of the controls to regain currency.
With regards to."sole manipulation of the controls", the Air Navigation Order has the following:
Pilot to remain at controls and be secured in seat
93.—(1)*This article applies to any flying machine or glider registered in the United Kingdom other than an EU-OPS aeroplane flying on a commercial air transport flight.
(2)*The commander of an aircraft to which this article applies must cause one pilot to remain at the controls at all times while it is in flight.
AFAIK, the ANO does not prohibit passengers flying the aircraft, but if a pilot must be at the controls at all times then a passenger is not in sole manipulation of the controls to regain currency.
Last edited by wb9999; 15th Jun 2013 at 23:12.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP804 does stipulate you must be a member of the flight crew for the 3 take offs and landings
If this is so please quote where, as it will (hopefully) stop further argument
on the matter going forward.
The quotes from the ANO you have provided do not support your statement,
as they simply say a pilot must be at (ie monitoring) the controls not
anything about who is manipulating them.
The incident reported, which started this thread, occurred on 15th Sept 2012,
two days before EASA came in to force.
I know it is not "the law" but LASORS 2010, Section F, Page 5 states:
Carriage of Passengers
... A pilot shall not operate an aeroplane or helicopter carrying passengers
as pilot-in command or co-pilot unless that pilot has carried out at least three
take-offs and three landings as pilot flying (sole manipulator of the controls) in
an aeroplane or helicopter of the same type/class or flight simulator of the
aeroplane type/class or helicopter type to be used in the preceding 90 days.
If the flight is to be carried out in an aeroplane at night, one of these take-offs
and landings must have been at night, unless a valid instrument rating is held.
If the flight is to be carried out in a helicopter at night, 3 take-offs and landings
must have been at night, unless a valid instrument rating (helicopters) is held.
A pilot who has not met the experience criteria above will be required to complete
the above requirements either as Pilot-in-Command of aeroplanes/helicopters as
appropriate or with a flight instructor, providing that the instructor does not influence
the controls at any time. The carriage of a safety pilot is not permitted to satisfy this
requirement
... A pilot shall not operate an aeroplane or helicopter carrying passengers
as pilot-in command or co-pilot unless that pilot has carried out at least three
take-offs and three landings as pilot flying (sole manipulator of the controls) in
an aeroplane or helicopter of the same type/class or flight simulator of the
aeroplane type/class or helicopter type to be used in the preceding 90 days.
If the flight is to be carried out in an aeroplane at night, one of these take-offs
and landings must have been at night, unless a valid instrument rating is held.
If the flight is to be carried out in a helicopter at night, 3 take-offs and landings
must have been at night, unless a valid instrument rating (helicopters) is held.
A pilot who has not met the experience criteria above will be required to complete
the above requirements either as Pilot-in-Command of aeroplanes/helicopters as
appropriate or with a flight instructor, providing that the instructor does not influence
the controls at any time. The carriage of a safety pilot is not permitted to satisfy this
requirement
that the 3 x T/Os & Lndgs in 90 Days Pax carrying currency could not
(according to CAA) be achieved as a Passenger, but only as pilot flying
(either PIC or DUAL).
So why did/do people assume their interpretation of the law is better than
the guidance given by the CAA?
Also note the last line of the quote.
The "Check Pilot" had to be PIC in this incident, both by law and by
the Group rules.
The "Checkee" could have been re-familiarised with, flown and even
landed, the aircraft under the guidance (not instruction) of the "Check Pilot"
but that would not have restored his currency to carry passengers.
The "Check Pilot", as PIC, must pay at least half the cost of the flight for
it to remain "private" and not "commercial".
Last edited by Level Attitude; 16th Jun 2013 at 00:02.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lasors is not a legal document and neither for that matter is CAP804.
They are CAA opinion and until tested in court are only guidance.
Lasors was in some ways a wish list for certain people of the CAA and was out rightly ignored by several senior examiners.
As an example the IMC recommended minimums were tested down to the IR mins by quite a few. And there was absolutely nothing the CAA could do if an IMC rated pilot regularly few to IR mins.
So unless your quotes are from the ANO they are pretty much meaningless.
In the old days the CAA used to give written answers. These days they won't. Mainly because there is only one place the law can be decided. There main ploy is to get people to plead guilty and then and only then do they go through the courts. The CAA doesn't have a very good success rate in court and well they know it.
They know fine this practise has been going on for years, they don't like it but there is no safety case to stop it with a legislation change.
As such under the old ANO there was no problem whats so ever doing the 3 as sole manipulator with someone else as PIC who is a none instructor.
How that's changed now part FCL is included in the ANO I don't have a clue.
They are CAA opinion and until tested in court are only guidance.
Lasors was in some ways a wish list for certain people of the CAA and was out rightly ignored by several senior examiners.
As an example the IMC recommended minimums were tested down to the IR mins by quite a few. And there was absolutely nothing the CAA could do if an IMC rated pilot regularly few to IR mins.
So unless your quotes are from the ANO they are pretty much meaningless.
In the old days the CAA used to give written answers. These days they won't. Mainly because there is only one place the law can be decided. There main ploy is to get people to plead guilty and then and only then do they go through the courts. The CAA doesn't have a very good success rate in court and well they know it.
They know fine this practise has been going on for years, they don't like it but there is no safety case to stop it with a legislation change.
As such under the old ANO there was no problem whats so ever doing the 3 as sole manipulator with someone else as PIC who is a none instructor.
How that's changed now part FCL is included in the ANO I don't have a clue.
As such under the old ANO there was no problem whats so ever doing the 3 as sole manipulator with someone else as PIC who is a none instructor.
I reall cannot understand why barrack room lawyers are trying to put any other interpretation on such a pretty straightforward requirement.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London UK
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From CAP804 (Section 4, Part A, page 6):
(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; and ... (goes on to PIC at night)
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; and ... (goes on to PIC at night)
Last edited by 24Carrot; 16th Jun 2013 at 07:30.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And that part of CAP804 is an extract of EASA Aircrew Regulation 1178/ 2011, which is EU legislation, for those who dispute quoted section's legality.
Last edited by wb9999; 16th Jun 2013 at 07:51.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're very good at discussing THE RULES in this country and getting all worked up about other people. Frankly who cares. Regain your currency how you think fit, and let other people regain it how they think fit. If they fly with a buddy for safety, then I really don't give a toss, let them get on with it. If you want to do it exactly as per CAPsdfbwhf or Lasors or some other CAA document, then please feel free to carry on.
Only in the UK can we discuss this for god knows how many posts and still argue about it. It is bad enough talking about the Cirrus parachute then to read pages of this drivel.
PS CAA documents have been known to be wrong.
PPS if you were uncurrent on something like a Christen Eagle, would you want to go up solo, with an experienced Eagle pilot, or that 21 yo FI who flies PA28's every day?! I know which I'd choose.......
Only in the UK can we discuss this for god knows how many posts and still argue about it. It is bad enough talking about the Cirrus parachute then to read pages of this drivel.
PS CAA documents have been known to be wrong.
PPS if you were uncurrent on something like a Christen Eagle, would you want to go up solo, with an experienced Eagle pilot, or that 21 yo FI who flies PA28's every day?! I know which I'd choose.......
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal, that sounds great - in a perfect world. But if you let people ignore one law, how many more do we turn a blind eye to? Give people an inch and they will take a mile and all that.
Before you know it we'd have people flying without licences or insurance or ignoring controlled airspace....
Before you know it we'd have people flying without licences or insurance or ignoring controlled airspace....
Last edited by wb9999; 16th Jun 2013 at 08:48.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There must be hundreds out there that have breached the ANO if that was the case BEagle
In fact what I have quoted to you was the interpretation given at an instructors seminar 4 years into JAR.
CAP804 IS NOT THE REGULATIONS
You need the original document.
That did make me smile. Its already here and has been so for years.
In fact what I have quoted to you was the interpretation given at an instructors seminar 4 years into JAR.
CAP804 IS NOT THE REGULATIONS
You need the original document.
Before you know it we'd have people flying without licences or insurance or ignoring controlled airspace....
That did make me smile. Its already here and has been so for years.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They know fine this practise has been going on for years, they don't like it but there is no safety case to stop it with a legislation change.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a bloody miracle mate. Even went IMC for the first time in 4 years using my IMC, single crew. Which was the whole point of me going cause nobody else available had an instrument qual. I had checked with the insurance before I left.
30mins DR without a GPS until the ADF sprung into life. Strangely enough it was on the radial I predicted it was going to be on as well and my ETA for the over head was within 2 mins. The planets aligned that day!!
And I did manage to remember FREDA and how to work a carb heat.
And when I got back I still wasn't legal because I only had 2 landings and the pub was open so couldn't be bothered doing a circuit to make it to 3.
30mins DR without a GPS until the ADF sprung into life. Strangely enough it was on the radial I predicted it was going to be on as well and my ETA for the over head was within 2 mins. The planets aligned that day!!
And I did manage to remember FREDA and how to work a carb heat.
And when I got back I still wasn't legal because I only had 2 landings and the pub was open so couldn't be bothered doing a circuit to make it to 3.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before you know it we'd have people flying without licences or insurance or ignoring controlled airspace....
That did make me smile. Its already here and has been so for years.
That did make me smile. Its already here and has been so for years.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPS if you were uncurrent on something like a Christen Eagle, would you want to go up solo, with an experienced Eagle pilot, or that 21 yo FI who flies PA28's every day?! I know which I'd choose.......
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much as people enjoy arguing about the rules or knocking flying instructors this is about a system that’s meant to keep people safe but instead tolerates people who set themselves up as pseudo flying instructors with no training, no competency assessment or formal regulation. In this case organizing a check ride in a plane they weren’t legally entitled to fly that got out of control on final approach shot across a major road narrowly missing people, crashed into trees severely injuring the hapless pilot suckered into the check ride who then got the blame.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
get real the Check pilot knew fine what they were doing.
Its not the fresh clueless PPL who will have set this up it will be the experienced members of the group who will have advised that its fine and what they normally do.
Then when something happened they have dumped the pilot in the poo and washed their hands and hope that they are insured. Which they more than likely aren't if the check pilot was outside 45 days.
Its not the fresh clueless PPL who will have set this up it will be the experienced members of the group who will have advised that its fine and what they normally do.
Then when something happened they have dumped the pilot in the poo and washed their hands and hope that they are insured. Which they more than likely aren't if the check pilot was outside 45 days.