90 Day Rule - revisited

[mad_jock]

I did sorry its the poor PPL that's been left to deal with this one.

Personally if I was him I would just stick to the line he wasn't PIC and that the other guy was. By the sounds of it he changed his story post event so they will be on plums as long as the checkee sticks to their guns.

[airpolice]

Steve1234 Wrote:

Anyone ever heard of a situation where an unqualified check pilot takes another pilot for a check ride and when the out of check pilot crashes the plane then claims that because 3 take off and landings had been done the out of check pilot was P1?

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?

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.

I think that Steve knows more about this situation than anyone else on here. In the position of the guy being checked out, I'd be looking for some "evidence" of being told to change details. Even an email would do.

Why did this (out of 90 day currency) guy get into a plane with someone other than an instructor?

I've often got into a plane with a QFI without checking his logbook to see if he has the required 3 in 90 just as I get in a car without asking to see proof of Licence & Insurance from the driver. We all have a right to expect a certain standard from Instructors.

The guy doing the checking "might" have been legal, the checkee has limited ways of knowing, but what he definitely did (or should) know, is that he himself could not be PIC. Since the purpose of the flight was to get him his 3 in 90 then the checker would have known that the checkee can't be PIC so therefore the checker must be.

Changing his story after the event is never going to be good for the guy being checked out, who up until that point had done nothing wrong. If he did in fact change his report, then he deserves all that he gets for doing so.

This whole debate has been good for flying clubs everywhere. It may well stamp out the dangerous practice of non instructors doing check rides.

[flybymike]

I've often got into a plane with a QFI without checking his logbook to see if he has the required 3 in 90 just as I get in a car without asking to see proof of Licence & Insurance from the driver. We all have a right to expect a certain standard from Instructors.

It has been said before on this forum by several people that the instructor need not necessarily be current on landings himself.

[Crash one]

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.......

That would depend on whether I was ANO current on SEP or not first.
If I were not 90 day current I would do 3to & lands with the 21yo in his PA28 first, then do as long as required in the Christen Eagle with the experienced pilot.
If it were a case of picking the most experienced on type things would be easier/different. This is not the case here. YOU CANNOT FLY WITH A PASSENGER AFTER 90 DAYS. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW EXPERIENCED THE PASSENGER IS, IF THEY ARE NOT AN INSTRUCTOR THEY ARE A PASSENGER. How difficult is it???Obviously if you find an old fart INSTRUCTOR on type then problem solved.

[fin100]

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.

I think steve1234 has hit the nail on the head here!

Pilot 1 believed he was legally being checked out by Pilot 2 who claimed he was P1 until 3 take offs and landings. Then after the accident Pilot 2 thinks - could be in trouble here so - I was only a passenger

The Groups rules prove the position of Pilot 2

If I go flying with a mate and take the RH seat that does not make the occupier of the LH seat P1.
The purpose of this flight was I thought a check ride NOT to regain 90 currency which could be done solo after. The AAIB stated that they went off to do air work or something similar. The reason for the flight is pretty clear.

And this syndicate is not new to incidents - 4 losses in 6 years - simple good search - Popham Flying Group

[Pittsextra]

Whats pretty embarrassing about this is that pilot 1, being so new to it all, picks up such bad airmanship so early on in his flying!

Almost as embarrassing as those who jump up and down suggesting the rules are a bit vague.

Being casual about all these might be possible for decades with no consequence but you just look a mug when it ends in a heap and everyone scrabbles to justify things.

Remember that shunt at Reno? The guy was 10k hours, warbird experience coming out of his ears, a living legend. Until his fudged paperwork and casual attitude wiped out a bunch of people that probably didn't expect the consequences of watching an air race could be so harsh.

Didn't look so smart then.

[Mike Cross]

OK it's starting to make sense.

The UK implemented the Regulation on 8 April 2012. Prior to that the ANO applied.

After that date the requirements of FCL 060 apply, providing you have a part FCL license. If like me you have a CAA PPL the wording in the ANO still applies.

FCL 060 does not explicitly state that the person doing the landings and take-offs has to be a crew member however it's fairly clear from the AMC and GM that this is the intent as they state that an instructor does not count as a passenger, and that if the flight is with an instructor for the purpose of regaining 90 day currency no passengers may be carried.

Anyone know if the regulation has also had the effect of stopping passengers being carried during a lesson, i.e. one stude in the front with the instructor and another in the back for one leg of a cross country swapping round for the return trip?

If not it would be a bit daft that if there's an instructor in the RHS it's OK for one stude to sit in back as a passenger while another stude landed it but not OK if the guy in the LHS already had a license but was out of 90 day currency.

Ho hum......

[Silvaire1]

The problem I have with flying with currently qualified instructors is that, more often than not, they don't know much compared with others I fly with. I'll fly with them when its legally necessary, but I'd much rather fly and learn (as I often do) with a guy who has thousands of hours in everything from flying boats to Phantoms to L-1011s, including several thousand hours of light aircraft instructor and T-28 instructor pilot experience, much of which was gained before the average active instructor was born.

That guy is one of perhaps five such guys who I could ask to fly with me on a given day, although one of them did just re-did his long inactive instructor rating on a sort of lark. I think when he retires from AA he'd like to make money as an examiner, and you have to work your way into that deal one step at a time.

I just like to learn, not act out theatre.

[Pittsextra]

So now we are moving from suggesting that the rules don't apply to people who think they know better to down grading FI's.

Before too long someone will moan about the cost of a medical being £100 more than it used to be, IMC and EASA, whilst being a 10 hour a year pilot...

[mad_jock]

If you have done a FIC and become un restricted your quite within your right to say it how it is about FI's

The current system isn't a touch on the old pre JAR one.

And it a crying shame the British Gliding Associations instructor system is way way more professional and standardised than the fixed wing one under the oversight of the CAA.

[Talkdownman]

Originally Posted by airpolice

This whole debate has been good for flying clubs everywhere. It may well stamp out the dangerous practice of non instructors doing check rides

OK, then, a scenario:

A PPL holder wants to join a non-equity SEP group. The SEP owner requires the PPL holder to be subject to a 'check flight'. The PPL is SEP qualified and current within 90 days.

Q. What qualifications and experience does the checker need, and what qualifications and experience do you think the checker should have?

[Pittsextra]

Madjock - in the end someone has to establish some framework to work with and let's be honest when people try and make an issue over 90 days, 3 take offs and landings and the option of a FI what hope?

In the context of this thread I'm sure a FI born from any system might have made a better fist of it than the two...as it turns out "victims".

Just because a flying group might find doing the right thing hard doesn't mean they should do as they please.

[Shunter]

It has been said before on this forum by several people that the instructor need not necessarily be current on landings himself

Quite, and I've even clarified that with the CAA. If I am not current under the 90 day rule, I cannot take my Mrs up flying as she is a passenger. However I could take another group member up flying for a currency check as they are not a passenger; I am P1 and they are a licensed pilot logging PUT. Perverse you might say, but they be the rules and I didn't write them.

[englishal]

Here is a daft situation we experienced once...and I digress slightly, but it is related to checkouts....

We bought a new complex type, so the insurance required a flight with a qualified flight instructor. A Class Rating Instructor is a qualified flight instructor by definition, so despite little or no experience on type, we were "checked out" by a friendly CRI (actually we figured out how to fly the thing together by reading the POH).

Now my other friend is an FAA CFII, and we wanted to let him fly the aeroplane, which is on the N reg. So he was checked out by the CRI. We also are friends of the CRI, and we wanted to have the ability to lend him the aeroplane if he ever wanted to borrow it. Except he wasn't allowed to fly it solo until he was checked out by a Qualified Flight Instructor. As my CFII friend is a QFI by definition, and was checked out on type (by the CRI), he conducted the checkout of the CRI (who had checked him and us out). Then the insurance required my co-owner (who has less high performance experience) to fly 10 hrs dual with me or an FI as safety pilot. Now the insurance was satisfied!

Yes the 90 day rule is very easy to understand, I just wonder how sometimes it is not in the best interest of flight safety. Doesn't bother me though as I have 2 FI buddies

[BEagle]

...Except he wasn't allowed to fly it solo until he was checked out by a Qualified Flight Instructor. As my CFII friend is a QFI by definition...

I know that military instructors are of a far higher calibre than minimum time hours building people-tube wannabees, but why on earth would an insurer require that your pilots were checked out by a QFI?

'QFI' is not a civilian qualification.

[flybymike]

He is showing his age Beagle. Pre JAR even we civvies had QFIs and AFIs. You must remember....

[foxmoth]

a scenario:

A PPL holder wants to join a non-equity SEP group. The SEP owner requires the PPL holder to be subject to a 'check flight'. The PPL is SEP qualified and current within 90 days.

Q. What qualifications and experience does the checker need, and what qualifications and experience do you think the checker should have?

Legally the guy does not need a check flight, what you are doing here is satisfying an insurance requirement and they are the ones who need to stipulate what qualifications and experience the checker needs, remember, we are talking legalities here, not what is necessarily sensible - if I was the owner and the insurance had not laid this down I would want to know the experience of the new member and who I had check him out might vary depending on this.

'QFI' is not a civilian qualification.

It might not be a laid down qualification or title, but EA said "by definition" and ANY Instructor who has done the course IS a Qualified Flying Instructor "by definition", they are Flying instructors and they are Qualified to be so - I cannot understand why people get so steamed up about this.

[Torque Tonight]

It is quite reasonable to for an aircraft owner to fly with a potential new group member and 'check him out' to guage his competence. This is not instruction merely observation, and is a sensible precaution before letting someone loose with your pride and joy. Regardless of being properly licensed, rated, current etc if I didn't have faith in someone's ability, they would not be flying my aeroplane.

Regarding the ongoing debate here, what the matter really boils down to is: can a (non instructor) pilot legally allow a passenger to handle the controls?

For those that continue to insist that the regulations are perfectly clear, we now have nearly 140 posts on this thread debating the question, at least three such threads this year, many more in previous years, and an accident report where the AAIB has to seek clarifcation. Regardless of which side of the question you come down on, I struggle to understand those who boldly state 'there is no doubt'. My opening comment on this subject was that the relevent regulations should be rewritten to eliminate the possibility of ambiguity - throwing insinuations about does not address that at all.

[Mariner9]

A question has occurred to me from reading this thread - I fly both EASA and Annex II aircraft, and until now, have assumed my 90 day currency is OK if I've done my 3 T/O and landings in either aircraft, or a combination.

But is that correct? Hours on Annex II don't count towards EASA, so do T/O and landings? Will I have to stay 90 day current on each type? I think I'll henceforth work on the case I need 90 day currency on each type unless someone can tell me it's not required.

[mad_jock]

I think we are also as well forgetting how difficult some schools make it for groups.

I have in the past while being in a club waiting for someone else to turn up watched what can only be called extortion being committed and being awkward for the sake of it. So much so I went and did the checkout in a group PA28 myself for free.

I also used to have groups turn up at my school just to get the hour with an instructor done because it was so much hassel getting it done at the local school. Even had snotty phone calls afterwards because the boss had signed there class ratings off for a bottle of whisky. Apparently if the group had used the local school in there aircraft the school wanted 40 quid per hour for the instructor and 70 quid each for the class renewal. Where as with us three of them got there hour and a trip up to Wick and Orkney and I was 15 quid an hour and they bought me lunch.

The fact is that if schools weren't such gits and the instructors made flights fun you never get this issue with people trying to avoid going anywhere near them.