A few years ago, as part of alignment with the European JAA requirements,
the UK introduced a requirement that is worded almost identically to 61.57,
which requires three t/os and landings in the last 90 days to carry
passengers.

Before this rule came into effect, UK pilots who hadn't flown for some
considerable time would often take along another non-instructor pilot, for
example, a co-owner, in the right seat. It made more sense to fly
accompanied by someone who was current than to fly solo. But the recent
introduction of a currency rule now prohibits the carrying of this
"passenger", forcing the pilot who wants to get back in 90-day currency to
fly solo (or find a CFI to accompany).

Is this also the way 61.57 is interpreted by the FAA?

Julian Scarfe

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
> [...] But the recent
> introduction of a currency rule now prohibits the carrying of this
> "passenger", forcing the pilot who wants to get back in 90-day currency to
> fly solo (or find a CFI to accompany).

Not sure how the UK interprets the situation. However, in the US there's
nothing in the regulations to prohibit a pilot from allowing a passenger to
manipulate the controls. So, a "solution" is simply for the pilot not
current to bring along a current pilot, who acts as pilot in command while
the pilot not current flies the airplane.

In other words, it's the pilot not current who is the passenger, not the
"ride-along" pilot.

The only trick is finding a current pilot who is willing to act as pilot in
command without actually touching the controls. Many pilots (who are not
also instructors, anyway) would be uncomfortable doing so, and if they don't
have a good reason to be confident in the skills of the pilot not current,
it would be with good justification to be wary.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

>The only trick is finding a current pilot who is willing to act as pilot in
>command without actually touching the controls.

Of course, if they do it this way, the current pilot has the
right and the responsibility to take the controls if there's
a problem. Doing it the way they used to do it, i.e., with
the current pilot being only the passenger, he did not have
the right to grab the controls. I suppose if they could
find pilots willing to risk their bodies before, without the
right to take control, they can probably find the same guys
when they're offered that right. Personally, I worry more
about my body than whether I'm "legally responsible" for
what happens to my body. :-)

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

After reading 61.57 (a)(1), a(1)(i) and a(2), I have a question on
maintaining currency as a PP here in the U.S.

If a PP flies multiple times within a 90 day period, and has conducted way
more that 3 landings/TOs, and he/she is the sole manipulator of the flight
controls, and his/her spouse is a passenger on each of those flights is the
pilot current at the end of the 90 days? The flying would be in a C172. I am
particularly interested in the a(2) paragraph that states : "For purposes of
meeting the requirements ... provided no persons or property are carried on
board the aircraft, other than those necessary for the conduct of the
flight."

I guess my confusion comes from the logic - what difference it make in the
above example if the pilot did the 3 L/TOs solo or with someone in the
plane? Now, I certainly understand if a pilot had NOT flown in 3 or more
months the logic behind the solo part.

OR

Is (a)(2) really saying that if you are not current you can still be PIC and
fly an airplane as long as no one else is aboard?

Thanks.

Harry
PP-ASEL

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
> A few years ago, as part of alignment with the European JAA requirements,
> the UK introduced a requirement that is worded almost identically to
61.57,
> which requires three t/os and landings in the last 90 days to carry
> passengers.
>
> Before this rule came into effect, UK pilots who hadn't flown for some
> considerable time would often take along another non-instructor pilot, for
> example, a co-owner, in the right seat. It made more sense to fly
> accompanied by someone who was current than to fly solo. But the recent
> introduction of a currency rule now prohibits the carrying of this
> "passenger", forcing the pilot who wants to get back in 90-day currency to
> fly solo (or find a CFI to accompany).
>
> Is this also the way 61.57 is interpreted by the FAA?
>
> Julian Scarfe
>
>

"Harry Gordon" > wrote in message
...
> After reading 61.57 (a)(1), a(1)(i) and a(2), I have a question on
> maintaining currency as a PP here in the U.S.
>
> If a PP flies multiple times within a 90 day period, and has conducted
way
> more that 3 landings/TOs, and he/she is the sole manipulator of the flight
> controls, and his/her spouse is a passenger on each of those flights is
the
> pilot current at the end of the 90 days? The flying would be in a C172. I
am
> particularly interested in the a(2) paragraph that states : "For purposes
of
> meeting the requirements ... provided no persons or property are carried
on
> board the aircraft, other than those necessary for the conduct of the
> flight."
>
> I guess my confusion comes from the logic - what difference it make in the
> above example if the pilot did the 3 L/TOs solo or with someone in the
> plane? Now, I certainly understand if a pilot had NOT flown in 3 or more
> months the logic behind the solo part.
>
> OR
>
> Is (a)(2) really saying that if you are not current you can still be PIC
and
> fly an airplane as long as no one else is aboard?

Yes, the latter. 61.57a2 does not say that acting as PIC without pax is the
*only* way to meet the currency requirement; it just says it's *a* way.

--Gary


>
> Thanks.
>
> Harry
> PP-ASEL
>
> "Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
> ...
> > A few years ago, as part of alignment with the European JAA
requirements,
> > the UK introduced a requirement that is worded almost identically to
> 61.57,
> > which requires three t/os and landings in the last 90 days to carry
> > passengers.
> >
> > Before this rule came into effect, UK pilots who hadn't flown for some
> > considerable time would often take along another non-instructor pilot,
for
> > example, a co-owner, in the right seat. It made more sense to fly
> > accompanied by someone who was current than to fly solo. But the recent
> > introduction of a currency rule now prohibits the carrying of this
> > "passenger", forcing the pilot who wants to get back in 90-day currency
to
> > fly solo (or find a CFI to accompany).
> >
> > Is this also the way 61.57 is interpreted by the FAA?
> >
> > Julian Scarfe
> >
> >
>
>

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
| A few years ago, as part of alignment with the European JAA requirements,
| the UK introduced a requirement that is worded almost identically to
61.57,
| which requires three t/os and landings in the last 90 days to carry
| passengers.
|
| Before this rule came into effect, UK pilots who hadn't flown for some
| considerable time would often take along another non-instructor pilot, for
| example, a co-owner, in the right seat. It made more sense to fly
| accompanied by someone who was current than to fly solo. But the recent
| introduction of a currency rule now prohibits the carrying of this
| "passenger", forcing the pilot who wants to get back in 90-day currency to
| fly solo (or find a CFI to accompany).
|
| Is this also the way 61.57 is interpreted by the FAA?

No. The regulation says that you may not act as pilot in command. Another
pilot may act as pilot in command while you do your takeoffs and landings
for currency.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
|
| The only trick is finding a current pilot who is willing to act as pilot
in
| command without actually touching the controls. Many pilots (who are not
| also instructors, anyway) would be uncomfortable doing so

Speaking as an instructor there are people that I am uncomfortable flying
with. I generally avoid the guys who want a BFR done in minimum time even
though they have not flown in several years, for example.

Our rental rules require that if you have not flown in the last 60 days you
have to do three takeoffs and landings with an instructor before we will
rent you a plane.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Speaking as an instructor there are people that I am uncomfortable flying
> with. I generally avoid the guys who want a BFR done in minimum time even
> though they have not flown in several years, for example.

Well, I didn't mean to imply that being an instructor is a panacea. There
will always be pilots who are scary to fly with. Some may even be 100%
current for carrying passengers. :) I just meant instructors normally
would have a higher degree of comfort overseeing a pilot not current.

Pete

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message ...

>
> Is this also the way 61.57 is interpreted by the FAA?
>

I don't think so. There are two issues.

First, note that 61.57 is not a requirement on pilots in general, only
on the pilot in command. Therefore, a qualified pilot can be in command
in the right seat while the guy in the left is shooting his landings.

Second, the history of the FAA is that if you put a pilot in a control seat,
he's a pilot, not a passenger. Certainly the FAA has gone after right
seat guys who had no apparent flight role other than occupying an otherwise
empty seat.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> The only trick is finding a current pilot who is willing to act as pilot in
> command without actually touching the controls.
The other trick is getting the insurance to work. Once you get past
the C-172s and get into "regular" GA planes the insurance requirements
get pretty specific. I don't think my insurance co would be too happy
if I wasn't current and went up with someone who wasn't named on the
policy and not a CFI (all policies will allow a non-named CFI to give
instruction to a named).

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> The other trick is getting the insurance to work. Once you get past
> the C-172s and get into "regular" GA planes the insurance requirements
> get pretty specific.

Well, you're right it does depend on the insurance policy. But no need to
be so pessimistic. Many policies provide for pilots with some minimum
experience, rather than requiring all pilots to be named. The pilot
themself may not actually be insured, but that's their concern, not the
airplane's owner.

I've been in this exact situation, and have flown with a pilot with the
necessary experience to meet the insurance requirements in my insurance
policy, when I was not passenger current. I used the same pilot to act as
PIC when I was without my medical a couple of years ago, though in that
situation I needed to have him named on the policy temporarily so that I
could operate the airplane on the water (my policy only allows non-named
pilots to be covered as PIC for land operations). The insurance company was
friendly about the whole thing, and added the pilot without any fuss, beyond
the phone call to them to ask them to do it.

Anyway, your point is a good one, but it shouldn't scare folks off of taking
advantage of this particular method for dealing with the "who's PIC"
question. Just check the policy, and if necessary contact the insurance
company for any clarifications or requests for exceptions.

By the way...

> [...] (all policies will allow a non-named CFI to give
> instruction to a named).

I think if we have learned anything over the years, it's that you cannot
make a true general statement like "all policies will allow a non-named CFI
to give instruction to a named". At the very least, there may be additional
requirements for that non-named CFI spelled out in the policy, and there may
well be policies for which even the instructor needs to be named (most
likely for the more obscure types, would be my guess).

Pete

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message om...
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> > The only trick is finding a current pilot who is willing to act as pilot in
> > command without actually touching the controls.
> The other trick is getting the insurance to work. Once you get past
> the C-172s and get into "regular" GA planes the insurance requirements
> get pretty specific. I don't think my insurance co would be too happy
> if I wasn't current and went up with someone who wasn't named on the
> policy and not a CFI (all policies will allow a non-named CFI to give
> instruction to a named).

Someone not named or explicitly meeting the open category isn't going
to be "covered." However, have you ever read your policy? I see nothing
in mine that would limit MY coverage if I brought along a second non-instructor
pilot in such a circumstance.