Four pages on this and we haven't had Irv commenting on this......:ok:

I think he is one of the posters who stopped posting on pprune after Genghis got banned.

Well if you can show me how FCL.060 features in UK Law then I might admit that you hàve a point.

As a member of the EU, EASA regulations supersede UK law.

Although I'm not sure what the exact legal status of EASA-FCL is at this very moment. The regulations might not have been fully effected yet, and countries can opt-out ("derogate") for a specific amount of time as well.

I suggest you read this From the EUropean Commission Application of EU law - European Commission

AIUI you are wrong. If you were to be prosecuted you would not be prosecuted for an offence against EU Law but for an offence against the National Law of the prosecuting State. It is up to EU States to incorporate EU Law into their National Law and, as the reference states, it is for the EC to monitor and take action if they believe it has not been done properly.

The ongoing controversy over the rights of prisoners to vote in UK elections is one such example.

From that same site, just on a different page:

(Application of EU law - European Commission; my bold)

(Application of EU law - European Commission; my bold)

Interesting, an endless source of funding for the legal profession I suspect. At the end of the day it comes down to a decision by a Court and what we say here is largely irrelevant.

If the a/c is certified for single pilot operation and someone esle is PIC I still don't see any prohibition on the non-PIC carrying out the take-offs and landings, subject to the common-sense caveat I posted earlier.

Mike

Quite straightforward in practice: EU Directives have to be enacted into national law. EU Regulations supersede national law.

PIC, Pu/t, sole manipulator, when common sense (and the law) is applied then it is obvious that if a pilot is outside of the 90 day ruling then the only other pilot that is legal to be on board is one that is authorised to be there.

That said as a practical person I do buy into the argument (to a point) that having another pilot on board would be safer than not, especially if you are a pilot who has few hours total and has not flown for some time. However for a moment imagine a senario (possibly not uncommon):

Pilot A has about 60 hours total, and completed his PPL four years ago and has not flown for four months, with only five hours in the last year. Basically he is, like many, a pilot who has to think about how to fly and everything is mechanical rather than natural.
He asks Pilot B, his PPL pal, along to act as a safety pilot while he does his required landings. This appears a wise decision even if not strictly legal. His PPL pal has maybe a hundred hours total and 10 hours in the last year but no instructor training or formal safety pilot training.
They take off, bimble around the circuit and his mate starts giving him some pointers on flying a tidier circuit, or a power setting or maybe points out the the flaps have been left down. All this adds to stress on the part of Pilot A. On short finals something happens, maybe Pilot A gets overloaded, maybe Pilot B (not a trained instructor remember) gets overly nervous, the upshot being that Pilot B takes control. Had he been by himself he hopefully would have gone around, thought about what happened, and corrected. Had he had an instructor onboard then there would have been a formal change of control, a discussion about what happened and then continue. However the situation now is finely balanced and possibly tense. Pilot B soon realises that his controls are in the opposite sense due to sitting in the right hand seat, if he flies wing down for crosswind his eyeline is different, it all feels very unnatural..... what happens next? Hopefully a successful landing but as has already been mentioned that is not always the case.

Personally after about six years flying Islanders I became a company examiner, I soon discovered that while hardly having to think about flying the thing from the left seat in crosswinds regularly 30kts, flying it from the right was a different matter. The picture out was different, my hands had to move in the opposite direction to normal for a go around, it all took a lot more thought. If you have no experience flying from the right hand seat then it might be wise to do a bit with a competent person in the left before safety piloting someone who has not flown for some time.

Good summary

When all goes well, then there is no issue, though those on board might wet their knickers, but swear blind everything was kosher.

In the incident I mentioned earlier, suppose the handling, but non-current pilot had died in the crash. Suppose the family then decided to take action against the PIC or his estate.

In my instance, the PIC took the blame and insurance paid out. They both survived but the aircraft was lost. In the event of death or serious injury, all bets are off.

For what it is worth, our group rules say that when you are at group limits or when you feel you are at your own personal limits - whichever comes first - then have a check with an instructor.

If you or your group work differently then fine.

A more likely Group scenario is pilot B has flown 10 hours in the last 6 weeks. There is only one local instructor with experience on the type, and that was more than 10 years ago. And B sits quietly, just responding to "Was that for us?" and " What did ATC say?" Or, (only once, in many years) after 5 go-arounds, "You take it."

I didn't know I'd stopped, mind you, my posting rate must be at least one per year so no-one would notice. I've been away for most of November here and there, and not had time to even read these 5 pages never mind figure out anything about banning. It all seems 'very UK' to dissect all these rules to the 'n'th degree to see how many interpretations or scenarios can be found. Do other countries' pilots do this dissection thing or do they just get on with it?

Some do, some don't.

Some seem to focus on the niff naff and triva and ignore important stuff which is actually quite sensible and a life saver eg Approach bans.

This topic has always been recycled with various people around the country taking exception to instructors not being used, mainly those involved in flying clubs and schools. They even go as far as MORing people who then never hear anything more about it. Just showing that they don't have a clue what the MOR system actually is.

I was even told once that it was illegal for me to sit in the RHS while flying a SEP as PIC without a valid instructors rating. When I pointed out that I hadn't actually flown a SEP in the LHS for 8 years and 1000 hours and my LST to get the class back was also done from the RHS. This was just greeted by a shocked look and a statement "thats illegal"

Then there is other bits of the country which it is a complete none issue and just the way its been done for years and years.

Let's put it in perspective. PPRuNe is (at least to me) a place to hang out when the weather is too lousy to fly. I don't mind discussing far-fetched legal scenarios as it keeps me sharp. And this particular thread caused me to look up various details about EASA-FCL (both the regulations and the AMCs), derogations for EASA-FCL and the way the EU works. I learned loads from that alone.

90 Day rule
 

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?

Nope, it is very very rare that anything happens on these flights.

Which is why there is no hard documentation on the subject.

As far as the "carry passenger" rule is concerned, the out of time pilot signs off the plane, and IS P1. He illegally carries a current, qualified, passenger, (who is aware of the situation,) just in case he finds things getting of his comfort zone. Also a valuable second opinion when he starts to worry about a noise/smell/vibration he's forgotten about, in a 50+ year old wood and fabric aircraft.

We haven't flown together before have we?.....

Was flying a 152 back from it's annual the other day and was crossing some CAS, checking the kit out when I heard my controller bellowing probably for the second time 'G-**** you are now under radar control do you copy!?'

'G-** was that for me?' :}

90 Day Currency for Carrying Passengers
 

Drawing together several different Threads, summarising and, of course,
giving my opinion:

(Can't work out how to embed actual Link to another Thread)
From Private Flying "Giving Passengers Control"
Big range of opinions from "We've been doing it for years, of course it's
legal !" to "The wings will fall off if you let a Pax even touch the controls
and you will end up in prison for the rest of your life"

It doesn't matter what has been the norm in the past, what does matter is
what is allowed now (post 17th Sept 2012) under EASA

50 (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a person must not act as a
pilot of an EASA aircraft that is registered in the United Kingdom without
holding an appropriate licence granted, converted or rendered valid under
the EASA Aircrew Regulation

EASA, in their wisdom, have decided not to define "pilot" therefore the
common usage (as relates to aviation) definition needs to be used.
Unfortunately there are two of these:
1) "A person who operates the flying controls of an aircraft" which reads correctly
when used in the above paragraph but does mean no allowing Pax to handle controls.
or
2) "One who is licensed to operate an aircraft in flight" Which (I hope) simply means
an EASA License is required to operate an EASA Aircraft.

I would like this clarified by our "Competent Authority" but I'm not holding my breath,
they took over 3 months to come up with the IN on Language Proficiency - and that
issue was causing themselves a great deal of hassle.

Since nothing is Loggable by any Passenger, then nothing "officially" takes place so
unless, and until, it is specifically forbidden I see nothing wrong with continuing to allow
Pax to have a go on the controls.

From Questions "Logging of T/O and Landings"
There was not under JAR, and there is not under EASA, any requirement to Log
Take Offs and Landings. However there are times when a pilot may be required to
prove what TOs and Lndgs they have done - ie Night Rating requires 5 x Solo TOs
and 5 x Full Stop Lndgs; Revalidating SEP by Experience need to prove 12 x TOs
and 12 x Lndgs in last year of validity.

Hopefully no one on this Forum will ever need to prove 3 x TOs, App and Lndg for
Pax carrying currency, but Logging them is both an easy way to do this
(not all airfields will note movements) and for pilots to easily check their
own currency.

Pax Carrying Currency
So if a pilot is perfectly legal to fly an aeroplane, but is outside the 90 Day
rule for carrying passengers they have several options:

a) If they are, or believe they are, perfectly competent.
1) Fly PIC Solo until within currency
2) Fly DUAL with an Instructor, just for the hell of it, until within currency
3) Fly PIC with an experienced Check Pilot, current on type next to them
4) Fly PIC with a "pilot mate" next to them
5) Fly PIC with a Pax next to them (for a couple of circuits to regain
currency) before leaving on the planned flight.
Everyone, so far, has agreed that 3), 4) & 5) above are illegal - so anyone
who decides to do this is just wilfully ignoring the rules which, to me, is a
sign that I probably don't ever want to fly with them

b) If they are a bit rusty and/or are not confident
6) Fly DUAL with an Instructor until within currency, or until they realise
they are competent and finish off PIC Solo.
7) Fly as Pax with an experienced Check Pilot, current on type who can
teach/coach them until they are competent to regain currency by flying
PIC solo.
As this is a private flight Check Pilot must pay their share for aircraft hire.
8) Fly as Pax with an experienced Check Pilot, current on type who can
teach/coach them until they are competent. Decide that as they now have
completed enough TOs and Lndgs (even if not competent) then they are current to carry Pax.
Private flight as in 7) above so PIC must pay. As a Pax nothing is loggable
so the TOs and Lndgs were not officially carried out by the Pax.
Therefore they cannot be relied upon to meet the official
currency requirement in order to legally act as PIC with passengers on board.
9) Fly as Pax with a "pilot mate" until they are competent to regain currency by flying PIC solo.
Why not? Except that if "pilot mate" is not also an experienced pilot on type, it
could take a loooong time for competency to be regained.
10) Fly as Pax with a "pilot mate" until landing currency (not necessarily competency) is reached.


It is scenarios 8) and 10) which seem to generate disagreement on this Forum. I, for one, firmly
believe that if something didnot "officially" occur
then it cannot be relied upon for an"official" purpose; others seem to take
a different view.

It also does not matter whose view, on this Forum, is correct as if there
is not an incident it doesn't matter and if there is:

From Private Flying "Advice Please"
Then it will be the CAA's view which counts, as they will decide whether
to invite you for interview, recommend sanctions (or prosecution) and
provide expert witnesses and advice to any magistrate/judge.

Is it really worth it for the cost of a couple of circuits?

LA

In a single pilot aircraft the pilot is the one who is licensed to fly the aircraft.

Even if he hands the controls to an unlicensed PAX he surely still remains the pilot and able to take back control if he sees fit.

If the said pilot hands control to the autopilot he is still piloting the aircraft so MAYBE ?? in the same way if he lets the PAX hold the controls the pilot is still the pilot.

As in all these scenarios all is fine till its not fine ie an accident occurs. Should the pilot guide the PAX through a landing and it goes wrong who is the pilot the guiding pilot who is still controlling the aircraft albeit through the hands of a PAX or the PAX?

As with all grey areas the closer you get to the line between grey and white the bigger danger of crossing that line or being deemed to have crossed that line.

Pace