Jack and Jill are both private pilots, neither is a CFI. Jack is out of night
currency, Jill is current.

Jack and Jill go flying at night under part 91, with Jack sitting in the left
seat (I know it doesn't matter) and manipulating the controls, while Jill acts
as PIC.

1) Can Jack log the time as PIC time? (I think yes, under the sole
manipulator rule)
1a) Can Jill? (I think not if Jack does)

2) After Jack has done three night takeoffs and landings to a full stop under
this scenario, is he current for carrying passengers at night? (it would
appear to me to be so)

3) Has Jack violated the FARs pertaining to carrying passengers at night? (It
would seem not, since Jill is the PIC and Jack doesn't even have to be a pilot)

4) Has Jill violated those FARs? (It would seem not, since Jill is night
current)

5) If Jill is confident of Jack's flying, and is herself competent, is this
stupid? (well, I suppose this depends on how well Jack and Jill fly)

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Teacherjh wrote:
> Jack and Jill are both private pilots, neither is a CFI. Jack is out of
night
> currency, Jill is current.
>
> Jack and Jill go flying at night under part 91, with Jack sitting in the
left
> seat (I know it doesn't matter) and manipulating the controls, while Jill
acts
> as PIC.
>
> 1) Can Jack log the time as PIC time? (I think yes, under the sole
> manipulator rule)

Yes.


> 1a) Can Jill? (I think not if Jack does)

No.


> 2) After Jack has done three night takeoffs and landings to a full stop
under
> this scenario, is he current for carrying passengers at night? (it would
> appear to me to be so)

Yes.


> 3) Has Jack violated the FARs pertaining to carrying passengers at night?
(It
> would seem not, since Jill is the PIC and Jack doesn't even have to be a
pilot)

No. Correct.


> 4) Has Jill violated those FARs? (It would seem not, since Jill is night
current)

No.


> 5) If Jill is confident of Jack's flying, and is herself competent, is
this
> stupid? (well, I suppose this depends on how well Jack and Jill fly)

Open for debate...

Hilton

(Teacherjh) wrote in
:

> Jack and Jill are both private pilots, neither is a CFI. Jack is out of
> night currency, Jill is current.
>
> Jack and Jill go flying at night under part 91, with Jack sitting in the
> left seat (I know it doesn't matter) and manipulating the controls,
> while Jill acts as PIC.
>
> 1) Can Jack log the time as PIC time? (I think yes, under the sole
> manipulator rule)

Of course. Lack of night currency doesn't preclude acting as PIC. It only
precludes carrying passengers.

> 1a) Can Jill? (I think not if Jack does)

No, unless the aircraft is certificated for more than one pilot. In that
case, the PIC can log all the P time, as can the pilot manipulating the
controls.

> 2) After Jack has done three night takeoffs and landings to a full stop
> under this scenario, is he current for carrying passengers at night?
> (it would appear to me to be so)

That's what the regulation requires.

> 3) Has Jack violated the FARs pertaining to carrying passengers at
> night? (It would seem not, since Jill is the PIC and Jack doesn't even
> have to be a pilot)

I'm not sure. There is no legal requirement to have a night-current PIC on
board. The only restriction I see for flying without 3 takeoffs and landings
in the past 90 days is that passengers cannot be carried. Neither flying at
night nor acting as PIC is prohibited.

> 4) Has Jill violated those FARs? (It would seem not, since Jill is
> night current)

If Jill is a passenger, I think not. The regulations don't cover violations
by passengers that I can see. If Jill is acting as PIC, I still think the
spirit of the regulation is that no violation has occurred, since the reason
for the rule is to protect innocent passengers. A night-current pilot
aboard, to perhaps assist the pilot obtaining currency, doesn't seem to me to
compromise safety in any way. However, the FAA doesn't always use logic and
sanity when it acts. There are idiots there just as there are idiots on the
street and in cockpits.

> 5) If Jill is confident of Jack's flying, and is herself competent, is
> this stupid? (well, I suppose this depends on how well Jack and Jill
> fly)

This depends also on their confidence in the local FSDO inspectors. I see
nothing wrong with the scenario, but then I'm not an FAA inspector, and have
absolutely no desire to be one.

--
Regards,

Stan

>>
Lack of night currency doesn't preclude acting as PIC. It only
precludes carrying passengers.
<<

Jack is carryiing Jill, who is PIC. I say (and other posts agree) that she is
not a passenger, and is not being "carried" by Jack (she is carryign herself,
as PIC).

One other question (the FAA always has "gotchas"

If Jack (out of night currency) pays for the entire flight, is the
non-equitable sharing of expense a problem? Same question if Jill (the acting
PIC) pays for the entire flight.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Here is a more straightforward but frustrating version of the same problem.

Suppose Jack and Jill are both private pilots and suppose neither is night
current.

It is legal for each one to go up solo and do 3 night landings for currency.

It is NOT legal for them to go up together and each do 3 night landings for
currency.

Yet clearly it would be safer (although not legal) for them to go up
together to do the 3 landings so that a night-inexperienced pilots has
another set of eyes helping him/her out.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

>>
Yet clearly it would be safer (although not legal) for them to go up together
to do the 3 landings
<<

The requirement isn't based on the safety of the flight, it is based on the
danger to passengers. At least one of the pilots, on at least three of the
loops around, is an innocent passenger.

Not true of an acting PIC.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" > wrote...
> Jack and Jill are both private pilots, neither is a CFI. Jack is out of
night
> currency, Jill is current.
>
> Jack and Jill go flying at night under part 91, with Jack sitting in the
left
> seat (I know it doesn't matter) and manipulating the controls, while Jill
acts
> as PIC.

First, 91.109(b) does not apply; Jill is not acting as a "safety pilot" for
simulated instrument flight.

How can Jill "act as PIC" while Jack is manipulating the controls?!?

If Jill is "acting as PIC," how can she legally/rightfully allow a
non-current person -- who admittedly is not comfortable flying the airplane
at night -- to manipulate the controls, especially in critical operations
such as takeoffs and landings? Since she is not a CFI, we cannot assume
Jill has the ability to recognize a deteriorating situation and take control
of the airplane in a reasonable manner.

IMO, though 61.51(e) and 61.57 are not totally clear, their intent is
reasonably clear to me when considered together.


> 3) Has Jack violated the FARs pertaining to carrying passengers at night?
(It
> would seem not, since Jill is the PIC and Jack doesn't even have to be a
pilot)

How is Jill the PIC, if she is not performing the duties of the PIC?

Why doesn't Jack have to be a pilot to operate an airplane?

At the very least, the operation is a violation of 91.13(a). There are 2
simple options for accomplishing the requirements of 61.57 without question
of legality:

Jack goes around the patch for 3 landings at a familiar, prominent,
well-lighted airport, then picks up Jill for the remainder of the flight
away from the airport. If necessary, Jill operates the airplane from home
airport to selected airport.

Jack hires a CFI to go with him for a night refresher flight, to include
3 landings.

Since reasonable options are available, there is no reason to use a
questionable practice.


> 4) Has Jill violated those FARs? (It would seem not, since Jill is night
> current)

She -- as "PIC" -- allowed a non-current pilot to perform critical
operations and "act as PIC."

>> How can Jill "act as PIC" while Jack is manipulating the controls?!?

The same way I can act as PIC while my non-pilot cousin acts the organic
autopilot. In any case I was not invoking anything about a safety pilot.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"John R Weiss" > writes:

>First, 91.109(b) does not apply; Jill is not acting as a "safety pilot" for
>simulated instrument flight.

But she *could*.

This was recently pointed out to me at PJY as a way that two pilots out of
night currency can legally fly together at night. Clever! I wouldn't have
thought of it.

Time to practice those zero/zero landings again...

--kyler

Here's an actual lab rat for you guys to dissect:

A couple of months ago, my wife's instructor wanted to get night current
so she could go with my student pilot wife in one of our club planes.
She isn't allowed by the club insurance to fly the airplane alone so I
took her up, as I was current. I flew from the left hand seat; she
wanted to land from the right as she would be doing with students. She
"manipulated the controls" for three landings and we parked it.

I considered myself to be PIC, so not a passenger, but she did the
landings, so regained her currency. She did not "use" her CFII
certificate in the sense of either of us logging it as dual time.

This seemed quite logical to both of us, but of course it is usually
futile to attempt logical analysis of government rules.

Geo. Anderson

>> Here's an actual lab rat for you guys to dissect: [snipped]

Who paid for the flight? My understanding is that if the pilot takes another
person, then that other person MAY NOT contribute more than 1/2 (her pro-rata
share) for the flight. Key here is who the FAA would consider the "pilot" and
who is actually paying for the flight. If they differ, you're in jack.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On 5/27/04 10:55 PM, Teacherjh wrote the following:
>>>Here's an actual lab rat for you guys to dissect: [snipped]
>
>
> Who paid for the flight? My understanding is that if the pilot takes another
> person, then that other person MAY NOT contribute more than 1/2 (her pro-rata
> share) for the flight. Key here is who the FAA would consider the "pilot" and
> who is actually paying for the flight. If they differ, you're in jack.
>
> Jose
>
I paid. She's not a club member, so there was no choice but to put the
flight on my tab. & she did not reimburse me. She probably shaved a
little off my wife's instruction bill in exchange but there was no
formal arrangement. The whole bill was probably about fifteen bucks as
the Warrior I flew is only about $55/hour tach & in the pattern the tach
is about 70% of Hobbs.