ORS4 No.1087 90-Day Rule for Private Pilots for LAPL?
 

I just read ORS4 No.1087, "90-Day Rule for Private Pilots". This describes exemptions for PPL and NPPL holders but makes no mention of the LAPL.

How on earth do I find out if it does? I tried the CAA feedback form.

Have you seen any clarification?

90 DAY RECENCY
 

In June 2014, the CAA circulated to the GA Partnership Group a proposal on the relaxation of the 90-day recency rule for passenger carriage for national (non Part-FCL / non JAR-FCL) pilot licence holders only. The proposal, using so-called 'informed consent' principles, would allow a second qualified pilot to elect to join the flight whilst recency is regained.

Feedback from industry was unsupportive.

But the CAA has now released ORS4 No. 1087 which sanctions precisely what industry didn't support. I do hope that they won't try to trumpet this as another 'quick win'.

See http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4No1087Corrected.pdf

I agree with 'industry' on this one.

As expressed in other Posts on the subject, although the ORS specifically prohibits this, I think there is too great a risk of 'Command' being shared.

This nonsense does NOT apply to the LAPL.

What if the nearest suitable instructor is 100+ road miles away? And few instructors are current on the type? It was legal to do 3 circuits in a Pa38, then take a pax in a Jodel DR 1050.
The CAA got this one right. They seem to be getting a lot right now. Pity so many are only until early August.

Me too, but for a different reason.

The rules are complicated enough already, with NPPL, PPL, LAPL, all having different revalidation rules, without introducing another difference between Licences!:=


MJ:ok:

The 90 Day Pax Carrying Rule is a legal date limit on activity, just like a valid Rating is - neither say anything about the competence of a pilot on a particular model of aircraft; therefore the abundance, or lack, of Instructors is completely irrelevant.

If someone is competent they can either complete any T/Offs and Landings required solo, before they carry passengers; or as PUT with an Instructor (if they wish).

If someone is not competent then they need an Instructor (and must fly as PUT). They certainly do not need a Passenger who, although they may offer advice, has absolutely no authority to ensure that advice is followed.

Read the ORS4 - Explanatory Note 3A LAPL is a Part-FCL Licence!

In our group the rules are clear. Although there is a 90 day legal rule, we work off a 42 day limit, otherwise you get checked out by an instructor. I doubt many clubs will allow a pilot to rent at the legal limit - they'll have local rules

Would this be the same "industry" as sells the services of those with instructor certificates?

What's all this about instructors?

90-day rule is (was!), simple. If you didn't have three take offs and landfings as sole manipulator, then a few solo circuits and Bob's your uncle, in climbs passenger.

Yes, if you are hiring, or in a syndicate, local rules may require an instructor for a checkout. Or you might feel rusty and feel the need for an instructors services.

But instructors were not necessary and rule was simple.

Now, more ways to fly illegally (by accident through ignorance or misunderstanding) and so more risk that passengers will be uncovered by insurance.

I couldn't get a job with the CAA because I wouldn't be able to make this stuff up!

And it doesn't even apply to all NPPLs - microlights are still under the old rules!

Does this nonsense even apply to EASA aircraft? Because United Kingdom (non Part-FCL / non JAR-FCL) private pilots may only fly such aircraft within LAPL restrictions - does FCL.060(b)(1) therefore apply in such cases? In other words, would such pilots need to meet EASA rather than ORS4 No.1087 derogation for 90-day recency with respect to passenger flying?

A very large can of worms indeed!

ORS4 No.1087 90-Day Rule for Private Pilots for LAPL?
 

I've never gone outside the 90 day currency thingy, thanks mainly to regular glider towing and having access to a group share. I have an EASA PPL but also retained my old UK PPL. So, a thought occurred to me about the significance of ORSA 1087 for those of us who have both licences AND access to an Annex II aircraft.
If I hadn't flown for 90 days or more, and felt the need for a fellow pilot to accompany me to do the 3 circuits and landings, I can now do that in an Annex II aircraft. Having done 3 take offs and landings and logged them, doesn't that also satisfy EASA's requirements? After all, I only need to enter the flights in my log book and, as with any other flight, I'm not required to distinguish whether these were done on my UK or EASA licence, just that I've done them.

Where do you log take offs and landings anyway? For the last 35 years anytime I have done some circuits my log just shows a start and finish time with no mention (or even column for) how many landings I did. There is nothing in the log to distinguish local flying from circuits.

Modern logbooks have columns to log both day and night take-offs and landings.

If you have an old logbook, you should log the number of take-offs and landings in the 'Remarks' column on the right.


MJ:ok:

A hypothetical scenario: A pilot owns/normally flies a taildragger is out of recency. Has a mate who used to fly taildraggers a couple of years ago, now flies and is current on PA 28.
Does the mate qualify as PIC capable or does the differences sign off lapse?
Would it be a good idea?
Point two: What if the pilot uses a technique that the Pax pilot thinks is dangerous and decides to take over? Side slip fr instance.

To comply with the ORS exemption the Passenger needs to be qualified to act as PIC. No mention of being capable, competent or current - but then why would it as it neither gives, nor implies, any role to the 'qualified' passenger.

To be qualified to be PIC in a Tail Dragger does require differences training and I do seem to remember that, if not utilised, the 'validity' of that training lapsed - but this may have been a recommendation, rather than mandatory.

NO

Then the PIC should punch them in the nose (if possible), Squawk 7005 (if Transponder Equipped), land as soon as possible and have their Passenger arrested for Unlawfully Interfering with an Aircraft in Flight.

It does not matter whether a Passenger is a child, a valid PPL Holder, a valid ATPL Holder or an Admiral from Star Fleet Academy they are still a Passenger and have absolutely ZERO authority in flight.

This ORS does not change that. It just means that, besides the PIC, one other qualified pilot may elect to sit in the aircraft whilst a 'not very current' pilot flies the aeroplane.

Excellent!

Incidentally, tailwheel differences training, once signed-off, is for life.

Pretty much my thoughts. The punch on the nose could of course develop into something more depending on weight and size of the occupants.
I think the whole idea is bad, relies on personalities, could lead to an assumption of "I am qualified, due to currency, you are not!".
If a pilot is out of currency to the point of wanting someone to sit RH for three circuits, then do it with someone who could actually be of use, or bite the bullet and get on with it.