noblues

Does anyone know if its legal for a' non instructor' to do recency checkouts in a group plane he is also a shareholder off?

I do recall once seeing a CAA reference to this effect, but can't seem to to find it now.

Thanks

Pilot DAR

Though I cannot speak directly to CAA regulations, if the candidate pilot is technically legal to fly, just out of currency, this is generally something that the insurer of the aircraft takes more interest in than the regulator (CAA). The insurer may, (and probably does) allow a non instructor to do a currency checkout. It's probably worth reviewing the applicable insurance expectations before seeking out an instructor if that's difficult.

TheOddOne

In a single engine piston (SEP) aircraft, certificated or permitted for a single pilot, then unless one of the occupants is a certificated instructor, then everyone apart from the pilot is a passenger. The pilot would normally be the person who has signed for the aircraft in the tech log. In the UK, if the pilot hasn't done 3 takeoffs and landings in the past 90 days then it is illegal to carry passengers. This transcends what the insurance company might have to say about recency checks. For unusual types, especially those on a permit, the Light Aircraft Association run an excellent scheme whereby pilots experienced on type have a Class Rating Instructor certificate, enabling them to do checkouts. Otherwise, find a friendly local instructor if it's a certificated (Cessna, Piper etc) type.

Apart from the above, I think it's an excellent idea for group members to fly together, provided it's within the law. It not only spreads the cost of a trip, but helps disseminate knowledge and increases airborne experience.

TOO

Pilot DAR

What TOO has said is correct, and corresponds to the Canadian regulation I know. The distinction which must be made is who's currency requirement is being met? If you have not flown in 90 days, then you may not carry passengers until you have completed three landings (and at night, if night flying is being proposed). But, if your license is valid, and you're insured in the aircraft, you can do that solo - no instructor is required to accompany you. If you're renting the plane, the answer will probably be different, not because of a regulatory requirement, but because of rental rules, or the insurer (may be the same). In that case, the insurer may be requiring your demonstration of currency (commonly 30 days). That will be a dual flight. From a regulatory standpoint, if you have done the required three landings within the last 90 days, the regulator thinks you're okay to carry a passenger. If you're between 90 and 30 days since flying, the insurer may require a check flight, but you're legal to carry a passenger, so you could legally take a non instructor pilot for a check flight, if that pilot were willing, and the aircraft owner agreeable - the regulator is not requiring that the pilot accompanying you be an instructor. Commonly, as airplane rental organizations have instructors around, they'll want you to fly with their instructor. If it's a shared airplane, it's whatever the insurer has said. Very commonly, I've seen an insurer require that a "check pilot" be at least a CPL.

This situation comes up annually in Canada for many pilots, when float flying season begins. No one has currency with water landings from over the winter. So, if you own the plane, you just go solo, do at least three landings, and if you're happy with them, you're good to go. If you're a floatplane rental pilot, you'll have to have a checkout with the pilot who just redid his currency solo - maybe yesterday!

The bottom line is to know who's requirement you're satisfying, then what that requirement is (or, just get an instructor).

Maoraigh1

Official Record Series 4 United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority Miscellaneous Air Navigation Order 2009 No: 1087 Publication date: 13 February 2015 General Exemption E 4000 90-Day Rule for Private Pilots
1) 2) 3) The Civil Aviation Authority (‘the CAA’), in exercise of its powers under article 242 of the Air Navigation Order 2009 (‘the ANO’), exempts any person who holds a pilot licence specified in column 1 of the Table below from the condition in relation to that licence specified in column 2. Before commencing a flight pursuant to this exemption the person intending to pilot the aircraft must: a) be satisfied that the intended passenger is qualified to act as pilot in command on the intended flight; and b) inform the intended passenger that the pilot does not have the recency which, but for this exemption, would be required for the carriage of a passenger. On any flight pursuant to this exemption, only one passenger may be carried.

noblues

Thanks everyone ... I've found it in the ANO ... its now under Schedule 8, Articles 152-158 Page 189

l10fly

It's also in the Skyway Code, Page 20 & note that the 90 day rule exemption only applies to UK PPL & NPPL holders, it does not apply to EASA licence holders.

GBEBZ

Its all alright quoting the law, but then try renting from a club who insist on a "checkout" with an "instructor of the club" every 14 days... or 30 days... or every time the moon passes overhead... No checkout = No rental...

Oh and they will state its for "insurance" purposes... yet when you ask for a copy of the insurance you get told its a fleet policy and thus you cannot see the terms... only the certificate in the techlog....

....

I know you know, but lets just ensure that we also state that the Skyway Code booklet is not law, just an interpretation of it in plain text and beautiful graphics .. :-)

Maoraigh1

I got my EASA and paid to keep a UK PPL as well. Someone tried to persuade me my EASA licence now made this illegal, inithe UK, overriding my UK licence.

Whopity

How could it do that? Under EASA the UK can issue National Licences for use on non EASA, Annex 1 aircraft.